Israel: Herzog chooses Gadi Eisenkot to attempt to form a government

Israeli President Isaac Herzog chose opponent Gadi Eisenkot to try to form the next government. According to the announcement of his office reported Saturday night, the official delivery of the mandate is scheduled to take place Sunday at the presidential residence in Jerusalem. This decision opens up a possibility of alternation, but does not mean that a coalition is formed or that Benjamin Netanyahu immediately leaves office. [S4] [S5] [S6]

A decision announced, a mandate still to be formalized

SRF, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Der Standard and Der Spiegel all report Herzog's choice of Eisenkot. However, their formulations are not perfectly aligned: several titles present the mandate as already assigned, while the texts of Der Spiegel and Der Standard announce a ceremony on Sunday. The Guardian and the Jerusalem Post also state that this official step remains to come. The distinction is important: the presidential announcement means the one who must negotiate, not a government that has already been invested. [S1] [S2] [S3] [S4] [S5] [S6]

The election on 27 October gave a clear majority neither to the Netanyahu camp nor to the opposition alliance led by Eisenkot. According to the Guardian, the outgoing Prime Minister's religious and nationalist coalition lost its majority, while remaining the largest bloc in Parliament. Der Standard thus describes a result that does not give either of the two rivals an obvious path to power. [S3] [S4] [S5]

Two unit offers, incompatible conditions at this stage

According to the evidence reported by Der Spiegel, the party of Eisenkot, Yashar, invited the Likud to join a common government. Netanyahu, for his part, called on the opposition to participate in a government of national unity comprising his party, the two ultra-Orthodox groups and the two far-right parties of his previous coalition. He did not specify who should lead this executive. [S4]

Eisenkot rejected this approach, calling it a communication manoeuvre. He asked Likud to publicly break his alliance with the formations that he designates as extremists and to accept a government under his leadership. These statements set out the competing conditions of both sides; They do not constitute a coalition agreement. [S4]

Arab parties at the heart of the parliamentary equation

Another obstacle is the position of the Arab parties. The Guardian reports that their leaders recommended Eisenkot during the presidential consultations, even though the anti-Netanyahu group he led refused to join them. Their recommendation cannot therefore be equated with a reciprocal commitment of government. [S5]

Netanyahu warned against an executive dependent on the support of these parties, claiming that he would destroy Israel from within, according to Der Spiegel. This is his political assessment, not a risk established by the articles consulted. To understand the scope of voter choice, three decisions must be distinguished: recommending a candidate to the Speaker, supporting his or her government in Parliament and participating in its coalition. At this stage, the available information does not show that an agreement bringing together these supports exists. [S4] [S5]

A framed calendar, no alternation acquired

The Jerusalem Post recalls that the Basic Law on Government grants the nominee 28 days to form an executive, with a possible presidential extension of 14 days. In the event of failure, a further attempt may be entrusted to another Member. If all the different procedures fail, the Knesset is dissolved and new elections are held. [S6]

The immediate responsibility lies with the leaders and MPs who are called upon to negotiate and then support a government. For residents, the announcement does not change the applicable rules or conduct of public affairs alone: the outgoing government remains in office on an interim basis until an executive has obtained the confidence of the Knesset. The sources consulted still do not establish a common programme to measure the consequences of a possible coalition on individual freedoms or security policies. [S4] [S5] [S6]