Gadi Eisenkot’s Bid To Replace Netanyahu Faces Israel’s Coalition Math

Gadi Eisenkot has been given the first chance to form Israel’s next government, but turning that mandate into a functioning government will be difficult. The former military chief received recommendations from factions representing 67 lawmakers in consultations with President Isaac Herzog, yet the parties that recommended him disagree over who should join his coalition. He must secure enough parliamentary support to win a confidence vote in the 120-member Knesset. Although 61 seats would give him a majority, a minority government could also take office if it secured a relative majority in the Knesset confidence vote.

Herzog formally tasked Eisenkot, leader of Yashar, with forming a government on November 8, after the October 27 election left both blocs short of a majority. Eisenkot has 28 days, with a possible 14-day extension, to assemble a coalition. The mandate gives him the first opportunity to negotiate, not a guarantee that he can take office.

Herzog said factions with 67 seats had recommended Eisenkot, while those with 46 backed Netanyahu. A seven-member faction made no recommendation. He said Eisenkot had received the “clear and unequivocal support” of a majority of lawmakers on the question of who had the better chance of forming a government. But recommendations do not commit parties to support a coalition agreement.

The numbers behind the bid

According to the Knesset’s official election results, Netanyahu’s Likud won 27 seats, the largest tally for any party, while his right-wing and religious-nationalist bloc secured 53 seats, eight short of a majority. Eisenkot’s Yashar party won 21 seats. The four-party opposition bloc, comprising Yashar, Be'Yahad, the Democrats and Yisrael Beiteinu, secured 48 seats. The two Arab-led parties, the Joint List and Ra’am, won 11 and eight seats respectively, taking their combined strength to 19.

Reuters identified three possible routes for Eisenkot: a minority government relying on Arab-party support, an agreement with ultra-Orthodox parties, or a broader unity arrangement. Each presents political obstacles.

The 67 recommendations came from factions including both Arab-led parties, but their positions on a future government differ. A report in Haaretz, cited by The Times of Israel, said Ra’am was willing to vote for an Eisenkot-led government even without a coalition agreement. The Joint List, however, would not vote in favour of such a government but would not act to topple it. While Ra’am's support could help Eisenkot secure the votes needed to take office, the Joint List's decision not to act to topple the government could help it survive subsequent parliamentary challenges.

Another obstacle concerns Hamas. Eisenkot has made recognition of Hamas as a terrorist organisation and a commitment to dismantling its military and governing capabilities conditions for coalition partners. During his consultations with Herzog, Ra’am leader Mansour Abbas stopped short of explicitly recognising Hamas as a terrorist organisation, saying such a declaration could undermine his role as an intermediary and put him and his family at risk. He nevertheless called for the group to be disarmed and removed from power. This difference could complicate negotiations over Ra’am's participation.

But cooperation is difficult. The Joint List has acknowledged disagreements with Eisenkot on several issues, including his positions on the conflict and his failure to take a firm stance against incitement targeting Arab citizens during the election campaign. Within his bloc, Yisrael Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman has ruled out a government dependent on Arab-party support. The Associated Press reported that Arab-party participation in an Israeli governing coalition has happened only once before, underlining the sensitivity of such an arrangement.

Coalition options and the conscription dispute

Eisenkot could seek support from ultra-Orthodox parties Shas and United Torah Judaism, which together hold 13 seats. However, their positions are not identical: Shas recommended Netanyahu during the presidential consultations, while United Torah Judaism withheld its recommendation for either candidate. Their support could take his 48-seat bloc to the 61 needed for a majority. But they have sought to preserve exemptions from military service for ultra-Orthodox men, an issue made more contentious by Israel’s wars and pressure on the military.

Eisenkot has called for mandatory military, national or civilian service for all, arguing that Israel needs to strengthen its military and expand its ranks. This conflicts with ultra-Orthodox demands to preserve exemptions from military service and remains a central issue for his secular and centrist allies.

Reuters quoted Lieberman as saying there was “no choice but to make difficult decisions” to prevent another election. He has indicated willingness to work with ultra-Orthodox parties if they accept military-service requirements. But the rest of Eisenkot’s bloc may not accept the same terms. The Times of Israel reported that Yashar and the Democrats have maintained tougher positions on military-service exemptions.

On November 9, The Times of Israel reported that Eisenkot and Lieberman had agreed to open discussions with Shas and United Torah Judaism, with a possible compromise on military conscription being considered in exchange for their support. However, UTJ had not yet been formally approached, and no talks had taken place between its leaders and the opposition bloc. The discussions remained at an early stage, with no coalition agreement reached.

Another possibility is a broader arrangement involving Likud. Netanyahu has called for a unity government of Zionist parties under his leadership, but Yashar representatives have rejected a unity arrangement with the incumbent prime minister. Reuters identified a broader arrangement involving Likud as one possible route, but Eisenkot has repeatedly ruled out serving in a government with Netanyahu himself. The gap between the two parties’ positions remains a major obstacle to such an arrangement.

What happens if he fails?

Eisenkot has called the process “extraordinarily complex” and urged the formation of a “national emergency government”. Reuters quoted him saying Israel was “approaching a point of no return” and calling for “creative and unconventional political steps”. Herzog also cited security and diplomatic challenges, including the threat from Iran, the need for progress towards peace in Gaza and negotiations with Lebanon and other neighbours.

If Eisenkot fails to form a government, Herzog has three days to decide whether to assign the task to another lawmaker, potentially Netanyahu, or leave the next step to the Knesset. A second nominee would receive 28 days to form a government, without an extension. If that attempt also fails, or Herzog decides not to nominate another candidate, at least 61 lawmakers would have 21 days to submit a written request asking him to assign the task to a member of the Knesset who has agreed to accept it. A request signed by at least 61 lawmakers, along with the proposed candidate's written consent, would require the president to issue the mandate within two days. The candidate would then have 14 days to form a government.

If no such request is submitted within 21 days, or the third nominee also fails to form a government, the Knesset is automatically dissolved and fresh elections must be held within 90 days. Netanyahu's outgoing government would continue in a caretaker capacity until a new government takes office.

Eisenkot must persuade parties with conflicting positions to support the same government without fracturing his own bloc. The 67 recommendations gave him the first move. Whether he can turn those recommendations into enough parliamentary support to win a confidence vote will determine whether he can end Netanyahu’s tenure.