Israel’s election has created a paradox: Benjamin Netanyahu has lost his parliamentary majority, yet his rival Gadi Eisenkot also lacks enough lawmakers to form a government. As a result, Arab parties hold the key to coalition talks. They made significant gains in the election, but cooperation with them remains politically explosive. President Isaac Herzog’s decision to give Eisenkot the first chance to form a government was a major setback for Netanyahu—and a test of how capable Israeli politics is of including the country’s Arab citizens in decision-making.
According to the Associated Press and Politico, Herzog gave Eisenkot the first opportunity to form a government after the October 27 election. The former chief of the General Staff and Netanyahu’s main rival has up to six weeks to negotiate. But the appointment is no guarantee of victory: neither the incumbent prime minister’s bloc nor the opposition won the necessary majority in the 120-member Knesset. At least 61 votes are needed to approve a government.
The main political shift is the result achieved by Arab parties. According to NPR, they won 19 seats, and the number of votes cast for them rose by 64% compared with the previous election. Higher turnout among Palestinian citizens of Israel helped deprive Netanyahu’s bloc of its majority and turned the Arab parties into potential kingmakers—participants whose support may be essential for either major bloc to secure enough votes.
For many voters, this was more than a tactical vote against Netanyahu. NPR tells the story of residents of the Arab town of Kafr Qasim, who link participation in the election to the worsening situation of Arab communities and a desire to protect basic civil rights. Jamal Zahalka, head of the High Follow-Up Committee for Arab Citizens of Israel, said that their community had “found its strength.” The result brings a broader question to the center of Israeli politics: can Palestinian citizens of the country influence the formation of a government while remaining targets of suspicion and political mobilization by right-wing forces?
Netanyahu and his allies are trying to make a possible Eisenkot alliance with Arab parties politically unacceptable. On election day, Netanyahu described high Arab voter turnout as an “emergency,” and after the election his party claimed that Arab parties had supposedly “stolen” the result. As NPR notes, no public evidence was presented to support these accusations; police found no basis for claims of widespread irregularities, and election officials said the results had not been compromised. AP also reports that Netanyahu warned of a government with “terrorist supporters”—his description of the Arab parties.
Netanyahu’s rhetoric is not only an attack on his opponents; it is also an attempt to influence the calculations of their potential allies. Eisenkot may be able to secure the support he needs from Arab lawmakers, but the cost to his bloc could be high: some Jewish right-wing lawmakers may refuse to cooperate. Moreover, the Arab parties themselves are divided over a future government. Ra’am has advocated joining a governing coalition, while the Joint List alliance, which won 11 of the 19 Arab seats, is not prepared to formally join an Eisenkot government. Its representatives have indicated they might support a government from outside, but point to the war in Gaza and the occupation of the West Bank as obstacles to a formal partnership.
Eisenkot is not a natural ally of the Arab parties either. He takes a hard line on security, previously served in Netanyahu’s war cabinet, and his son was killed in the war in Gaza. NPR also recalls Eisenkot’s association with the so-called “Dahiya Doctrine,” a concept involving the use of disproportionate force against areas from which armed groups operate. This underscores that any potential coalition would not be an alliance of like-minded forces, but a pragmatic arrangement dictated by parliamentary arithmetic.
The possibility of a broad coalition involving major Jewish parties also remains open, but Eisenkot and Netanyahu have deep disagreements. Disputed issues include religious parties’ demands to exempt ultra-Orthodox men from military service and Netanyahu’s refusal to support an official inquiry into the security failures preceding the October 7, 2023 attacks. Eisenkot has also called for a “national emergency government,” but that formula does not in itself resolve disagreements or guarantee a majority. Another option is a minority government supported from outside by Arab parties, which would not join the cabinet. But, according to AP, some members of Eisenkot’s bloc have already said they reject this scenario.
It is important to distinguish between being tasked with forming a government and actually forming one. The president asks a candidate to lead negotiations, but the candidate must secure lasting parliamentary support by reaching agreement with potential partners on a platform and the distribution of power. If Eisenkot fails within the allotted time, another candidate may get a chance; if all negotiations fail, new elections could follow. Herzog’s decision is therefore an important political signal, but no guarantee of a change in government.
Taken together, these reports point to several trends. First, Israel’s political system has become even more fragmented: the largest party cannot automatically turn a first-place finish into a parliamentary majority. Second, greater participation by Arab citizens has increased their influence while intensifying the debate over who is considered a legitimate participant in Israeli politics. Finally, the military and societal polarization following Hamas’s October 7 attacks and the wars that followed makes coalition compromises especially painful: cooperation with Arab parties could help the opposition secure a majority, but it risks splitting its own bloc.
The main question, then, is not only whether Eisenkot can oust Netanyahu. The broader issue is whether parliamentary arithmetic can translate into political partnership when some parties consider an alliance with Arab lawmakers unacceptable, while Arab representatives themselves are unwilling to join a government unconditionally during wartime. The election gave Arab parties a significant voice, but the negotiations ahead will show whether that voice becomes real participation in power—or remains a pretext for a new campaign against the political inclusion of Arab citizens.
