Israel at a Political Crossroads
Israel has entered a new and potentially historic chapter in its political history. President Isaac Herzog’s decision to give opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot the mandate to form the next government represents a significant political development and a serious challenge to Benjamin Netanyahu’s long-standing dominance of Israeli politics.
Following the parliamentary elections of October 27, 2026, Israel found itself facing a familiar but increasingly complicated political reality: neither of the two main political camps secured an outright majority in the 120-seat Knesset. However, the balance of political power has shifted, creating an opportunity for the opposition to attempt something that has remained out of reach for years – establishing an alternative government.
On November 7, President Herzog announced that he intended to task Eisenkot with forming the government. The decision followed consultations with political factions, during which representatives of parties holding a combined 67 seats recommended Eisenkot, compared with 46 lawmakers who supported Netanyahu. One faction, representing seven seats, did not recommend either candidate.
The president’s decision is politically significant. But receiving the mandate and successfully forming a government are two very different things.
The numbers are encouraging, but the political reality is complicated
At first glance, the opposition appears to have a parliamentary advantage. The Knesset has 120 members, meaning that 61 votes are required for a stable parliamentary majority.
The parties opposed to Netanyahu collectively have a potential base of 67 seats. Yet this figure conceals a fundamental problem: the opposition is not a unified political movement. It is an alliance of parties with different ideological positions, political priorities and red lines.
Eisenkot, a former IDF Chief of Staff and leader of the centrist Yashar party, must now transform a shared desire to replace Netanyahu into an actual political agreement. That is where the most difficult part of the process begins.
The Arab parties, which collectively hold 19 seats, could become decisive in determining whether an alternative government is possible. Their support could provide Eisenkot with the parliamentary backing he needs. However, cooperation with Arab political representatives remains controversial among several potential coalition partners.
Avigdor Lieberman and other right-wing opposition figures have expressed reservations about certain forms of cooperation with Arab parties. This creates a political dilemma: can the opposition remove Netanyahu without relying on parliamentary support from parties that some of its own members are unwilling to accept?
Netanyahu is weakened, but not politically finished
For Benjamin Netanyahu, the president’s decision represents a serious setback. His Likud party won 27 seats, more than Eisenkot’s Yashar party, which secured 21. Nevertheless, Netanyahu’s broader political bloc has only 53 seats, leaving him short of the required majority. Yet it would be premature to regard Netanyahu’s political influence as finished.
He remains an experienced political operator with a substantial parliamentary base, loyal allies and considerable influence within Israel’s right-wing political establishment.
Netanyahu’s strategy may now focus on exploiting disagreements within the opposition. If Eisenkot fails to reach an agreement with the Arab parties, the religious factions or right-wing partners, the political initiative could return to Netanyahu. The possibility of a national unity government also remains part of the political discussion, although the differences between Netanyahu and Eisenkot make such an arrangement difficult.
The military draft and relations with Arab parties: Two major obstacles
Two issues could determine the fate of the negotiations. The first is the military draft of ultra-Orthodox Israelis. The question of whether religious communities should receive exemptions from compulsory military service has become one of the most divisive issues in Israeli politics.
Eisenkot has supported a more universal approach to military service. However, potential cooperation with ultra-Orthodox parties could require compromises that might undermine this position.
The second issue is the role of Arab parties in a future government. The Arab political representation in the Knesset has become particularly important following the election. Without some form of cooperation or parliamentary support from these parties, Eisenkot’s ability to secure the necessary votes becomes significantly more complicated.
This is not simply a question of parliamentary arithmetic. It is also a question of political identity, public legitimacy and the future character of Israeli democracy.
What happens if Eisenkot fails?
Under Israeli law, Eisenkot will initially have 28 days to form a government, with the possibility of an extension of up to 14 additional days granted by the president.
If he fails, another member of the Knesset may be given an opportunity. If the political system cannot produce a viable government through the available constitutional procedures, Israel could face another election. Such a scenario would prolong political uncertainty at a time when the country continues to face significant security, economic and diplomatic challenges.
For Israeli society, another election would mean yet another period of political campaigning, uncertainty and confrontation between competing visions of the country’s future.
The real question: Can the opposition agree on what comes after Netanyahu?
The most important question facing Israel is no longer simply whether Netanyahu has lost his parliamentary majority. The more fundamental question is whether his opponents can agree on a common political program. Opposing the same prime minister does not automatically mean sharing the same vision for the country.
Eisenkot must reconcile competing positions on security policy, relations with the Palestinians, religious legislation, military service, judicial reform and the role of Arab citizens in Israeli political life. A coalition built exclusively around the objective of replacing Netanyahu could struggle to survive once the immediate political goal has been achieved.
Israel needs more than an agreement on who should leave office. Any new government will have to demonstrate that it can govern, make difficult decisions and maintain parliamentary support.
Conclusion: An opportunity, not yet a political victory
President Herzog has opened the door to a possible political transition in Israel. By giving Gadi Eisenkot the first opportunity to form a government, he has recognised the new parliamentary balance and created a serious challenge to Netanyahu’s continued leadership. The opposition has the numbers to negotiate, but it does not yet have a guaranteed governing coalition.
Its success will depend on whether Eisenkot can persuade parties with fundamentally different political interests to accept a compromise. The Arab parties, the right-wing opposition and the religious factions will all play an important role in determining the outcome.
The coming weeks will therefore be about much more than political negotiations. They will test whether Israel’s fragmented opposition can transform electoral success into a functioning governing majority.
One thing is already clear: Netanyahu’s political future is no longer determined solely by his own parliamentary bloc. It now also depends on whether his opponents can overcome their differences and agree on an alternative. Israel is facing a moment of political opportunity, but whether that opportunity becomes a lasting change of government remains an open question.
