Israel’s political limbo: Netanyahu’s powers as interim prime Minister

Despite losing the initial opportunity to form a government, Netanyahu retains significant authority as interim prime minister. As analyst Ehab Jabareen explained to Al Jazeera, “Netanyahu lost the priority of forming the government, but he did not lose the current premiership.” His position is sustained by the divisions within the opposition, who must agree on a strategy to remove him.

Israel operates without a formal constitution, relying instead on Basic Laws. Article 30 of the Basic Law: The Government stipulates that the outgoing administration continues to function until a new one is sworn in, ensuring continuity. This means Netanyahu’s government maintains its powers over state management, security, and foreign relations, albeit with a duty of restraint.

A key concern revolves around Netanyahu’s control over the military. He can make appointments and security decisions, but faces increased scrutiny due to a lack of popular mandate. While he cannot unilaterally initiate a new conflict, Article 40 of the Basic Law allows his cabinet to authorize military action. Jabareen suggests Netanyahu could exploit existing tensions, such as those with Iran or Lebanon.

Netanyahu’s influence extends to controlling the flow of intelligence to the security cabinet, potentially shaping how threats are perceived. The Shin Bet, Israel’s internal intelligence agency, continues to report directly to him.

While Netanyahu’s security powers are substantial, his domestic and legislative abilities are constrained. Writer Maysara Bahr warned that financial decisions made now could burden the next government. However, he cannot enact legislation to shield himself from his ongoing corruption trial.

Netanyahu is actively attempting to undermine the opposition by appealing to Zionist voters and portraying Eisenkot’s alliance as reliant on Arab parties. Bahr cautioned that Netanyahu might even incite domestic unrest to obstruct the transition.

Israel’s current situation mirrors similar transitions in parliamentary democracies like the United Kingdom and India, where caretaker prime ministers retain legal authority. However, unlike the United States, where an outgoing president faces strict timelines and congressional oversight, Israel’s process lacks such formal constraints.