Israel’s Future Depends on Arab Parties Joining Eisenkot Coalition

Israel stands at a critical crossroads. If Gadi Eisenkot’s anti-Netanyahu bloc refuses to cooperate with Arab parties, it could squander an opportunity to form an alternative government, leave Benjamin Netanyahu in power, and deepen the political and diplomatic crises threatening Israel’s future. The consequences could extend far beyond another round of coalition negotiations, affecting Israel’s democracy, international standing, relations with Jewish communities worldwide, and prospects for peace and regional normalization.

The stakes are especially high following the October 27 election. Netanyahu’s bloc fell short of the 61 seats needed for a Knesset majority, while Arab-led parties emerged with about 19 seats. Their support could prove decisive in determining who forms the next government.

Refusing to cooperate with Arab parties could amount to putting political taboos ahead of Israel’s national interest.

Keeping Netanyahu in power would deepen Israel’s crisis

If the anti-Netanyahu parties refuse to work with Arab representatives, Netanyahu could remain in office by assembling an alternative coalition, attracting defectors, or benefiting from another inconclusive election. Even if he eventually leaves office, the failure to explore a viable alternative could prolong political instability.

Continued rule by Netanyahu’s present political allies could also preserve policies that have damaged Israel’s international standing: the devastating consequences of the Gaza war, settlement expansion, violence by Jewish extremists against Palestinians, and resistance to a credible two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

These policies have consequences beyond the immediate security situation. Images of suffering in Gaza and reports of violence in Judea and Samaria have intensified international criticism of Israel. If the government continues along the same course, hostility toward Israel could grow further, strengthening efforts to isolate the country diplomatically, economically, and culturally.

The distinction between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies and antisemitism must never be blurred. Antisemitism is an ancient hatred that cannot be explained solely by Israel’s actions, and those who hold Jews collectively responsible for their government’s conduct must be challenged.

Nevertheless, Israeli policies can provide ammunition to antisemites, reinforce hostility toward Israel, and make life more difficult for Jewish communities in the diaspora. When Israel is perceived as rejecting Palestinian rights or tolerating extremist violence, Jews elsewhere may face increased pressure to defend actions they neither support nor control.

Israel’s leaders therefore have a responsibility not only to protect Israeli citizens but also to consider the consequences of their policies for Jewish communities worldwide.

A government that pursues security while advancing justice, democratic equality, and a credible path toward peace would be better positioned to counter antisemitism and strengthen the relationship between Israel and the diaspora.

Israel also faces the danger that prolonged political instability, international isolation, and uncertainty about the country’s future will encourage more Israelis to leave.

Emigration decisions are complex. Economic opportunities abroad, family considerations, personal security, and professional prospects all influence them. It would be wrong to attribute every departure to Netanyahu or any single government policy.

Yet a country’s political direction matters. Israelis who fear declining democratic standards, continuing conflict, economic uncertainty, or growing international isolation may question whether their children and grandchildren will have the future they want in Israel.

If more highly educated and professionally skilled Israelis decide to establish their lives elsewhere, the country could lose valuable talent, tax revenue, and entrepreneurial capacity. A prolonged political crisis could intensify these concerns and make reversing such a trend more difficult.

Regional normalization requires a different direction

Israel’s failure to resolve its conflict with the Palestinians is also obstructing opportunities for normalization with Saudi Arabia and other Muslim-majority countries.

Saudi Arabia has made meaningful progress toward making Palestinian statehood a central condition for establishing diplomatic relations with Israel. Analysts at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies have described how the Gaza war and negative Saudi public opinion have made normalization increasingly difficult. INSS analysis

A government that continues to reject a credible political horizon for the Palestinians risks further diminishing the prospects of a Saudi-Israeli agreement. It could also make it harder to expand cooperation with other Muslim-majority nations.

Normalization would offer Israel potential diplomatic, economic, technological, and security benefits, while strengthening regional cooperation. These opportunities should not be sacrificed to ideological rigidity or the political survival of particular leaders.

An alternative government would not automatically secure normalization or resolve the Palestinian conflict. But a government committed to examining realistic diplomatic initiatives and advancing a two-state solution could create conditions more favorable to renewed negotiations.

Perhaps the most fundamental issue is the future of Israeli democracy.

Arab citizens of Israel are entitled to equal citizenship and political representation. Their elected representatives should be evaluated on their positions, conduct, and willingness to uphold democratic principles—not excluded categorically because they represent Arab voters.

Israel has previously demonstrated that cooperation is possible. In 2021, the Ra’am party joined the Bennett-Lapid governing coalition, establishing a precedent for an Arab-led party participating in an Israeli government.

Working with Arab parties would require difficult negotiations and clear agreements on security, governance, and policy. The parties involved would not have to agree on every issue. They would, however, need to establish common ground on essential national priorities and the rules governing their cooperation.

Democracy means more than allowing citizens to cast ballots. It also requires respecting their representation and recognizing that governments must be formed through legitimate parliamentary processes.

Excluding Arab parties solely because of their identity would undermine that principle and risk deepening alienation among Arab citizens, who constitute a substantial part of Israel’s population.

Eisenkot and his partners face a difficult decision. Cooperation with Arab parties would require political courage, compromise, and assurances that the resulting government could function effectively. Such an arrangement would carry risks, and its success would depend on the commitments of all participating parties.

But refusing even to pursue serious negotiations carries risks of its own: Netanyahu remaining in power, another election, continued political paralysis, further damage to Israel’s international reputation, diminished prospects for regional normalization, increased pressure on Jewish communities abroad, and growing doubts among Israelis about their country’s future.

Israel’s opposition leaders should begin serious negotiations with Arab parties immediately, seeking a governing agreement based on democratic principles, equal citizenship, security, and a credible path toward a two-state resolution.

Israel needs leadership capable of looking beyond ideological taboos and short-term political calculations. Its future depends on protecting democracy, improving relations with its Arab citizens, rebuilding international trust, and pursuing peace with the Palestinians.

The question is not whether an alternative coalition would solve every problem. It is whether Israel’s political leaders will make a serious effort to prevent a prolonged crisis when a parliamentary alternative may exist.

Failure to make that effort could carry a heavy price—not only for Israel’s present government, but for the country’s security, democracy, international standing, and future generations.