Israeli President Isaac Herzog has selected opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot to receive the first opportunity to form the country’s next government, putting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hold on power under its strongest challenge since the October 27 election. Herzog informed Eisenkot of the decision on Saturday night, and the President’s Residence said the formal mandate ceremony would take place in Jerusalem at 5 pm on Sunday, November 8. The announcement begins a difficult coalition negotiation; it does not immediately remove Netanyahu from office or guarantee that Eisenkot can assemble a governing majority.
Also read: Israel Certifies Election Results, Rejects Fraud Claims as Coalition Talks Begin
The election left the 120-seat Knesset without a clear majority. Netanyahu’s religious-nationalist bloc won 53 seats, while the four-party opposition bloc led by Eisenkot secured 48. The two Arab-led parties, Ra’am and the Joint List, won a combined 19 seats. A government needs the support of at least 61 lawmakers, so neither of the main blocs can govern on its own. The arithmetic gives the Arab parties potential leverage, but their support is politically sensitive and does not automatically translate into a stable coalition.
Herzog’s decision followed consultations with representatives of the incoming parliament’s factions. In a statement issued after the consultations on November 5, the President’s Office said factions representing 67 lawmakers had recommended Eisenkot, while factions representing 46 recommended Netanyahu. A seven-member faction did not recommend either candidate. Herzog cautioned at the time that the figures did not settle the question of who could form a government because of mutual vetoes between and within the political blocs. His choice came after further conversations with party leaders over the weekend.
The distinction between recommendations and a working majority is central to the next stage. The 67 recommendations for Eisenkot include support from the Arab-led parties, but not all of the parties that endorsed him have agreed to join a cabinet or to support every policy proposal. Some members of his own opposition bloc have ruled out relying on Arab parties for a government. Herzog has therefore given Eisenkot the first chance, not a guarantee that the parties will sign a coalition agreement or that he can pass a confidence vote.
Eisenkot, a former chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, entered politics in 2022 and leads the Yashar party. He campaigned as the main challenger to Netanyahu and has called for a national emergency government capable of bridging divisions that have deepened through years of conflict and political instability. His military background gives him standing on security questions, but forming a government will require him to negotiate across parties with different views on religion, military service, the war in Gaza and the future role of Arab lawmakers.
Under Israel’s government-formation process, the candidate who receives the mandate has 28 days to assemble a coalition. The president can grant an extension of up to 14 additional days. If the candidate cannot form a government within the permitted period, the mandate can be passed to another lawmaker or the process can move towards another election, depending on the steps taken in the Knesset. The timetable means Eisenkot has several weeks, but the political bargaining will begin immediately and may involve agreements on cabinet posts, budgets and legislation as well as the public positions of each party.
On the numbers alone, an arrangement between Eisenkot’s 48-seat bloc and the two Arab-led parties could produce 67 seats, comfortably above the 61 needed for a majority. The Joint List won 11 seats and Ra’am won eight. Their combined result is the strongest parliamentary position for Arab-led parties in this election cycle and gives them a chance to influence the formation of the next government. But support can take different forms: a party may join the cabinet, back a government from outside or agree to support selected confidence votes without becoming a formal coalition partner.
That distinction matters because Israeli governments have rarely relied on Arab parties. Ra’am became part of a governing coalition once before, in the Bennett-Lapid government formed in 2021, but the arrangement was politically contentious and depended on a narrow parliamentary balance. The current negotiations are taking place after more than three years of war following the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023. In that environment, any agreement with Arab-led parties is likely to face intense scrutiny from voters and from political rivals who argue that such support would weaken Israel’s security position.
Netanyahu has sought to make that issue central to the negotiations. In a video statement shortly before Herzog’s announcement, he called for a broad national unity government and warned against a government that relied on Arab-led parties, using language that portrayed them as a security threat. Those claims are political allegations, not evidence that the parties have supported Hamas or acted against the state. Eisenkot has indicated that he could work with Arab lawmakers under conditions, including a commitment to Israel’s security and the removal of Hamas’s governing and military power in Gaza. The terms of any such arrangement remain unsettled.
Even if the Arab parties are willing to provide support, Eisenkot must first manage disagreements inside his own bloc. Avigdor Liberman, the leader of Yisrael Beiteinu, has opposed a government dependent on Arab parties. Other opposition figures have also signalled that they would not accept every form of cooperation. A coalition that includes Arab parties could therefore reach a numerical majority but still face defections or refusals when it comes to key votes. A minority government with outside support may be possible, but it would require a reliable understanding about budgets, security decisions and confidence motions.
## Netanyahu’s options and the issues that could decide the talks
Netanyahu’s 53-seat bloc remains the largest single grouping in the Knesset, even though it fell short of a majority. He could seek a unity arrangement with major Jewish parties, but Eisenkot has repeatedly said he does not intend to serve in a government led by Netanyahu. A broader deal would also have to resolve differences over the role of religious parties and the demands made by ultra-Orthodox factions, particularly exemptions from military service. Those disagreements have been a major source of tension in Israeli politics and could make a unity government difficult to sustain.
The question of military service is not a technical detail. Eisenkot has argued that service obligations should apply more broadly, while ultra-Orthodox parties have defended arrangements that exempt many religious students from compulsory service. The issue has become more politically charged after years of fighting that have placed additional demands on the armed forces and on reservists. Any coalition agreement that changes the current arrangements could trigger opposition from religious parties, while leaving them unchanged could alienate parties that campaigned on a more equal distribution of national obligations.
Another issue is the investigation into the security failures surrounding the October 7 attacks. Eisenkot has supported an examination of the failures that allowed Hamas to carry out the attacks, while Netanyahu has resisted a formal state commission during the war. The choice of a commission, its mandate and the timing of any inquiry could become part of coalition negotiations. For families of those killed or taken hostage, the question is not only who governs but whether the next government will establish an independent account of the decisions that preceded the attacks.
The war in Gaza and the wider regional security situation will also shape the talks. Eisenkot has pledged to end Hamas rule in Gaza and opposes Palestinian statehood, but he has also criticised aspects of Netanyahu’s approach and has spoken against violence by extremist settlers in the West Bank. A government formed around his leadership could therefore differ in tone or in some policy choices without representing a complete break from Israel’s current security posture. The composition of the cabinet, the role of the defence minister and the influence of religious-nationalist parties will matter as much as the prime minister’s own statements.
Netanyahu remains prime minister while the coalition process continues. The president’s decision does not suspend the outgoing government or transfer executive authority to Eisenkot. Until a new cabinet is sworn in, the existing administration remains responsible for security, diplomacy and public services. That continuity is important in a country dealing with active security threats and a fragile regional environment, but a prolonged caretaker period can complicate long-term decisions and major appointments. The immediate test is whether Eisenkot can turn the recommendations he received into signed commitments from enough lawmakers.
The certified election results have already removed one source of uncertainty. The Central Elections Committee said it found no irregularities capable of changing the outcome, and the official figures were submitted to the President’s Residence before the consultations. The new stage is therefore about political bargaining rather than recounting votes. Netanyahu’s allies have continued to question the political legitimacy of Arab-led parties, but the election authority’s review did not support claims that the national result had been compromised. Those claims should remain attributed to the politicians making them.
If Eisenkot fails, Herzog may give Netanyahu an opportunity to assemble a government, or another lawmaker could be considered if the parliamentary process allows it. If no candidate can secure the necessary support, Israel could face another election only weeks or months after the October vote. That possibility is not inevitable, but it remains part of the calculations for parties deciding whether to compromise now or risk returning to voters. A second election would prolong uncertainty over budgets, appointments and the government’s response to security and economic pressures.
The consequences extend beyond the immediate contest between two political leaders. A coalition that depends on Arab-led parties would mark a significant moment in the relationship between Israel’s Jewish-majority political system and its Arab citizens. A unity arrangement could preserve a larger role for Netanyahu’s Likud but require compromises on religious policy, military service and accountability for October 7. A narrow coalition could give Eisenkot the premiership while leaving his government vulnerable to disagreements over the same issues that divided the campaign. None of these outcomes is assured by the president’s decision alone.
For regional partners, the change in who leads the coalition talks will be watched for what it may mean for Gaza, the West Bank and Israel’s relations with neighbouring states. But there will be no immediate shift in policy simply because Eisenkot has received the first mandate. Any new government would have to negotiate its programme among parties, secure parliamentary confidence and then translate its commitments into decisions. Until that happens, the caretaker government remains in place and Israel’s foreign and security policies continue under the existing administration.
The next milestone is the formal mandate ceremony scheduled for Sunday evening in Jerusalem. After that, the focus will move to coalition agreements, the position of the Arab parties, the response of Liberman and other opposition partners, and whether Netanyahu’s bloc can offer a unity arrangement that changes the arithmetic. Eisenkot has the first opportunity, but the challenge is not simply to replace Netanyahu. It is to assemble a government that can survive the political divisions that produced the deadlock in the first place.