Prime Minister of Israel after the next election?

The central question is not whether Netanyahu remains politically relevant, but whether he can actually assemble a governing coalition and be formally sworn in after the election. In Israel’s parliamentary system, the largest party does not automatically produce the prime minister; what matters is whether the president can task someone with forming a majority and whether that person can secure a coalition agreement and a Knesset confidence vote. That gives Netanyahu a real path, but it also means he can be blocked even if his bloc performs reasonably well in seat share terms.

The main argument supporting Yes is that Netanyahu has an unusually durable political base and a long track record of surviving crises, reshuffles, and electoral deadlock. He remains the most recognizable figure on the right, and in fragmented elections a leader with a loyal core can still emerge as the compromise choice if smaller parties prefer continuity, cabinet leverage, or policy alignment. If the anti-Netanyahu camp remains divided among multiple lists or if turnout patterns favor his bloc, his chances rise quickly because coalition formation in Israel often hinges on just a handful of seats.

The main argument against Yes is that the anti-Netanyahu vote has repeatedly proven capable of coalescing just enough to deny him a stable majority, even when he remains the strongest single leader. His legal baggage, polarizing brand, and the fatigue that comes with decades in politics make him a difficult unifying figure for centrist or religious-national partners if they sense an alternative majority is available. The market’s current pricing implies that this structural headwind is already well recognized; still, 29 percent for Yes may slightly understate how often Israeli politics has rewarded comeback scenarios when rivals cannot form a viable governing bloc. Overall, the balance of evidence suggests he is a meaningful but clearly non-favorite candidate to be sworn in next.