Israeli President Isaac Herzog has tasked opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot with forming a government, setting the stage for complex coalition negotiations amid deep political divisions.
Israeli President Isaac Herzog announced on Saturday that he has selected opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot to form the next government, granting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s chief rival the first opportunity to build a coalition following an inconclusive national election. Herzog’s decision, made on November 7, will be formally presented on Sunday, November 8, at 5 p.m. Israeli time. Eisenkot will have 28 days to assemble a government, with a possible 14-day extension.
This decision could signify a pivotal moment in efforts to end Netanyahu’s lengthy tenure. However, it also initiates a challenging round of coalition negotiations, marked by significant disagreements among the parties vying to replace him.
Following two days of consultations with Israel’s newly elected parliament, Herzog revealed on Thursday that factions representing 67 of the Knesset’s 120 members had endorsed Eisenkot, the chairman of the Yashar party. In contrast, Netanyahu received support from 46 lawmakers, while seven members of the ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism party opted not to endorse either candidate.
“The results of the consultations may appear clear,” Herzog stated in his November 5 announcement, but he cautioned that competing political demands and vetoes have left the prospects for forming a government uncertain.
Despite the 67 endorsements, Eisenkot faces the challenge that these do not equate to a 67-seat governing coalition. In the October 27 election, Netanyahu’s Likud party emerged as the largest single party with 27 seats, while his broader political bloc secured 53 seats. The alliance seeking to replace him garnered only 48 seats.
The endorsements for Eisenkot also include support from two Arab-led parties, the Joint List and Ra’am, which together hold 19 seats. Although both parties recommended Eisenkot to the president, their backing poses a dilemma for some of his potential coalition partners, who have ruled out relying on Arab parties to form a government.
In a detailed statement on Friday, Eisenkot outlined his vision for a National Emergency Government, initially based on the four parties committed to replacing Netanyahu, while leaving the door open for additional parties and lawmakers to join. “Israel is facing a genuine, tangible and dangerous national emergency,” Eisenkot asserted. He accused the outgoing government of undermining Israeli democracy and warned that ongoing political instability could exacerbate the country’s security and diplomatic challenges.
Eisenkot indicated that negotiations with his political partners had already yielded significant progress, with further discussions ongoing. His proposed government would be founded on four key principles: recognition of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state; acceptance of the values enshrined in Israel’s Declaration of Independence; universal military, national, or civilian service; and recognition of Hamas as a terrorist organization, along with a commitment to dismantle its military and governing capabilities.
He expressed a willingness to invite lawmakers from across the political spectrum to join his government, provided they accepted these principles. However, even within the bloc aiming to replace Netanyahu, there are lingering disagreements about how to secure the parliamentary support necessary to govern.
A potentially significant development emerged on Friday when Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the secular nationalist Yisrael Beitenu party, indicated a readiness to compromise on military conscription for ultra-Orthodox Jews, a longstanding position that has hindered political cooperation with religious parties. In a statement posted on X, Lieberman emphasized that preventing another election and ending Netanyahu’s tenure would necessitate difficult political compromises.
He outlined three conditions: concluding the Netanyahu era, avoiding another election, and refraining from establishing a government reliant on the abstention of the Joint List and Ra’am. On other contentious issues, including the military draft law, Lieberman insisted that political leaders must be prepared to negotiate.
This shift could pave the way for discussions with United Torah Judaism, whose seven lawmakers withheld their recommendation from Netanyahu, despite the party’s historical alliance with him. United Torah Judaism leader Yaakov Asher welcomed Lieberman’s newfound flexibility but noted that any agreement would require approval from the party’s religious leadership.
The conscription issue remains a significant barrier. Ultra-Orthodox parties have sought legal protections for yeshiva students who study religious texts instead of serving in the military, while Eisenkot and several of his partners campaigned on expanding the obligation to serve. Even if United Torah Judaism were to join the opposition bloc, Eisenkot would still fall short of the 61 seats needed for an outright parliamentary majority. Another possibility would involve forming a minority government with support from parties outside the coalition, a scenario discussed by Eisenkot’s allies but explicitly rejected by Lieberman if it relied on Arab factions.
This disagreement highlights the central challenge facing Eisenkot: although a majority of lawmakers recommended him for the first opportunity to form a government, they have yet to agree on how such a government should be structured.
Meanwhile, Netanyahu continues to serve as caretaker prime minister as political negotiations unfold. The prime minister has also challenged aspects of the election results amid an investigation into alleged voting irregularities. However, Israel’s Central Elections Committee stated that the integrity of the election had not been compromised, according to Reuters on November 5.
For Eisenkot, receiving the presidential mandate represents an important political milestone. However, transforming his broad parliamentary endorsement into a functioning government will require navigating complex agreements among parties divided over some of Israel’s most contentious domestic issues, particularly military service and cooperation with Arab lawmakers. Failure to bridge these divisions could leave Israel facing further political deadlock and the possibility of another election.
According to Fox News, the outcome of these negotiations will be crucial in determining the future political landscape of Israel.