TEL AVIV, Israel, Nov 8 – Israel has entered a critical period of political negotiations after President Isaac Herzog selected opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot to receive the first opportunity to form the country’s next government. The decision represents a significant setback for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose governing alliance lost its parliamentary majority in the October 27 election. However, Eisenkot’s appointment does not mean that a change in leadership is guaranteed, as he faces difficult negotiations with political parties whose positions on military service, Palestinian issues and the country’s security policies remain sharply divided.
Herzog announced his decision late Saturday following consultations with representatives of the political parties elected to the Knesset. Eisenkot, a former chief of the Israel Defense Forces and Netanyahu’s principal political challenger, emerged as the candidate with the strongest possibility of assembling a parliamentary majority.
The opposition leader is expected to receive the official mandate during a ceremony on Sunday. He will then have 28 days to negotiate an agreement with potential coalition partners, with the possibility of obtaining an additional two weeks from the president. The process could determine whether Netanyahu’s extended period in office comes to an end or whether Israel faces another round of political uncertainty.
Netanyahu has not accepted the prospect of losing power and is expected to use the coming weeks to challenge Eisenkot’s efforts. The outgoing prime minister has also called for a national unity government, raising the possibility of negotiations between the two rivals despite their political differences.
Election Results Leave Israel Without a Clear Parliamentary Majority
Israel’s electoral system makes coalition negotiations essential because voters elect political parties rather than choosing a prime minister directly. The parties must subsequently negotiate agreements to establish a government capable of commanding the confidence of at least 61 members of the 120-seat Knesset.
The October 27 election produced no outright winner. Netanyahu’s political alliance suffered a substantial decline, falling from a previous high of 68 parliamentary seats to 53. Meanwhile, the opposition bloc led by Eisenkot secured 48 seats, while Arab-led political parties collectively won the remaining 19.
Although neither political camp reached the required majority independently, the distribution of seats created an opportunity for Eisenkot to assemble a government with support from parties outside his immediate opposition alliance.
During consultations with political representatives, President Herzog concluded that Eisenkot had a stronger opportunity to secure the necessary parliamentary backing. The position taken by Arab-led parties played an important role in that assessment, as they indicated their willingness to support an effort to replace Netanyahu.
However, political support does not automatically translate into participation in a governing coalition. Some Arab-led parties may be prepared to support Eisenkot from outside the government, while several parties within his own opposition bloc have reservations about cooperating with them.
The differences are particularly significant because Israel has spent the past three years engaged in military conflicts involving Gaza and other parts of the Middle East. These developments have intensified disagreements over national security, relations with Palestinian communities and the political role of Arab citizens.
Eisenkot must therefore find a formula that attracts enough parliamentary support without causing his existing political partners to withdraw from negotiations.
Eisenkot Faces Difficult Choices Over Coalition Partners
Eisenkot has several possible routes to forming a government, but each presents political complications. He could negotiate a power-sharing arrangement with Netanyahu, seek parliamentary support from Arab-led parties or attempt to reach an agreement with ultra-Orthodox religious parties.
A unity arrangement with Netanyahu could provide a route to parliamentary stability, but it would require two long-standing political rivals to agree on the distribution of power and the direction of government policy. Such arrangements have historically faced difficulties in Israel, where competing political interests can make coalition governments vulnerable to internal disagreements.
Securing support from Arab-led parties offers another possibility. However, some members of Eisenkot’s opposition alliance have already expressed opposition to relying on these parties, making the negotiations particularly sensitive.
The Arab political parties have their own expectations. They have criticized Israeli government policies and have called for changes involving Palestinian issues, settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank and the treatment of Arab communities inside Israel.
Eisenkot, meanwhile, has established conditions for cooperation. These include recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and a commitment to classify Hamas as a terrorist organization. Such requirements could complicate efforts to reach an agreement, particularly with parties that have strongly criticized Israel’s military policies.
The ultra-Orthodox parties present another major challenge. Their participation could provide Eisenkot with additional parliamentary support, but their longstanding demand to preserve military service exemptions conflicts with one of the opposition leader’s central campaign commitments.
Eisenkot and his political partners made equal military and civil service obligations a significant part of their election platform. They have argued that the longstanding exemptions granted to ultra-Orthodox religious communities should end, particularly as military demands have increased during years of conflict.
The issue has become increasingly controversial among the Israeli public. Many Israelis believe military service obligations should apply more equally across society, while ultra-Orthodox parties argue that exemptions are necessary to protect their religious way of life and allow members of their communities to continue studying religious texts.
The United Torah Judaism party, which previously participated in Netanyahu’s governing alliance, has indicated that it may remain open to cooperation with Eisenkot. Its final position could become important if negotiations with other political groups fail to produce a majority.
However, another opposition partner, Yisrael Beytenu, has already ruled out joining a government that depends on Arab-led parties. This position further narrows Eisenkot’s options and highlights the difficulty of balancing competing political demands.
Netanyahu Challenges Election Outcome as Government Formation Begins
While Eisenkot prepares to negotiate with potential coalition partners, Netanyahu is expected to continue challenging the political circumstances that led to his election defeat.
The outgoing prime minister has repeatedly claimed that Arab political parties influenced the election unfairly by encouraging high turnout among their supporters. He has described the outcome as stolen, although he has provided little evidence to substantiate those allegations.
Netanyahu is also expected to argue that any government relying on Arab-led parties would represent a betrayal of Israel’s national interests. His position could increase pressure on members of Eisenkot’s political alliance who are already uncomfortable with cooperation involving Arab parties.
Israel’s Shin Bet security agency has opened an investigation into possible foreign interference in the election. However, the country’s Central Elections Commission and President Herzog have maintained that the vote was valid. They have also indicated that even if irregularities are identified, there is no evidence that they significantly changed the overall result.
Netanyahu’s call for a national unity government on Saturday night suggests that he may still seek an arrangement that allows him to remain involved in the next administration. Whether Eisenkot would consider such an agreement remains uncertain.
The coming days will be particularly important for Israel’s political leadership. Eisenkot is scheduled to formally receive the mandate on Sunday, beginning the official process of coalition formation. The newly elected members of the Knesset are also expected to take their oaths on Tuesday evening.
Until a new government is established, Netanyahu and his Cabinet will remain in office in a caretaker capacity. Their authority will be limited during this transitional period, leaving major political decisions dependent on the circumstances surrounding the formation of the next administration.
If Eisenkot fails to secure an agreement within the initial 28-day period, he may request an additional two weeks from Herzog. Should he remain unsuccessful, the president could give Netanyahu another opportunity to assemble a parliamentary majority.
If neither political leader manages to form a government, Israel could be forced to return to the polls early next spring.
For now, Eisenkot has the first opportunity to end Netanyahu’s hold on power, but the election results have left him with a complicated parliamentary landscape. His success will depend not simply on the number of parties willing to support his candidacy, but on whether deeply divided political groups can agree on a common programme for governing the country.