Israeli President Isaac Herzog on Saturday night gave opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot the first opportunity to form a new governing coalition following the October 27 parliamentary elections, bringing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s long political dominance closer to an end.
Eisenkot, a former chief of the Israeli military and the main challenger to Netanyahu, now faces the difficult task of assembling a parliamentary majority in a deeply divided country grappling with the consequences of the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks and nearly three years of war in Gaza and across the region.
Under Israel’s political system, Eisenkot has up to six weeks to negotiate with political parties and establish a coalition government. However, despite receiving the president’s mandate, securing the necessary parliamentary support remains uncertain.
During consultations with Herzog earlier this week, representatives of most major Israeli political parties recommended that Eisenkot receive the opportunity to form the next government. The recommendation reflected growing opposition to Netanyahu, whose Likud-led political bloc lost its parliamentary majority in the October elections.
However, Eisenkot’s bloc also failed to secure enough seats to govern independently, leaving Arab-led political parties in a potentially decisive position.
The Arab-led parties made historic gains in the election, creating an unusual political situation in which their support could determine whether Eisenkot succeeds in replacing Netanyahu. Yet cooperation with these parties carries considerable political risks, particularly following the prolonged war in Gaza.
An Arab party has participated in an Israeli governing coalition only once in the country’s history, making the prospect of another such arrangement politically sensitive.
Netanyahu has repeatedly sought to prevent Eisenkot from building an alliance with Arab-led parties. He has also made unsubstantiated allegations that Arab political groups were responsible for stealing the election.
Shortly before Herzog announced his decision, Netanyahu released a video statement calling for a national unity government and warning against what he described as an attempt to quickly establish a government supported by terrorist sympathizers.
His remarks were widely understood as targeting Arab-led political parties, which Netanyahu and his allies have repeatedly portrayed as a national security threat.
Eisenkot, however, has indicated that he could consider cooperation with Arab-led parties under certain conditions. Among those conditions, he has emphasized that Hamas must be recognized as a terrorist organization and that the group must be destroyed.
The political negotiations could produce several possible outcomes, including a broad national unity government involving major Jewish political parties.
Both Eisenkot and Netanyahu could theoretically participate in such an arrangement. Netanyahu’s Likud remains the single largest party in parliament, giving him considerable influence despite the loss of his governing majority.
However, significant ideological and political differences between the two leaders could make a unity agreement difficult.
One of the central disagreements concerns Netanyahu’s dependence on ultra-Orthodox religious parties, which have demanded exemptions from compulsory military service for ultra-Orthodox men. Eisenkot and other opposition figures have criticized such exemptions, particularly following the military and security pressures created by the Gaza war.
Another major disagreement involves accountability for the October 7 attacks, when Hamas-led militants launched an unprecedented assault on southern Israel, killing approximately 1,200 people and taking hostages.
Eisenkot has supported a formal investigation into the security and political failures surrounding the attacks, while Netanyahu has opposed establishing such an inquiry.
The disagreements could complicate efforts to bring Likud and Eisenkot’s political bloc into a single government.
Another possibility is a minority government led by Eisenkot, supported by Arab-led parties from outside the formal governing coalition. Such an arrangement could allow him to secure parliamentary backing without giving Arab parties ministerial positions.
However, the proposal also faces resistance within Eisenkot’s own political alliance, with some members indicating that they would reject any government dependent on Arab-party support.
Eisenkot’s party, Yashar, responded sharply to Netanyahu’s national unity appeal in a statement published on X, urging members of Likud to reconsider their alliance with what it described as radical political parties.
The statement appeared to target the far-right factions that form part of Netanyahu’s religious-nationalist political base.
Yashar also stressed that any government formed under Eisenkot would include only political parties and members of parliament willing to support its stated principles.
The election outcome marks a significant political setback for Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, whose leadership has faced mounting criticism over the October 7 security failures, the conduct of the subsequent wars and disagreements over military service obligations.
Although Herzog’s decision gives Eisenkot the first opportunity to form a government, it does not guarantee that he will succeed. The coming weeks of coalition negotiations will determine whether Israel enters a new political era or faces another prolonged period of political uncertainty.
