Israel is facing a potentially decisive political turning point, but the parliamentary arithmetic tells only half the story.
Gadi Eisenkot, Benjamin Netanyahu’s principal rival, has secured the backing of 67 lawmakers to attempt to form the country’s next government, comfortably exceeding the 61-seat threshold required for a parliamentary majority.
Netanyahu, by contrast, received endorsements from just 46 members of the Knesset during consultations with President Isaac Herzog.
On paper, the result appears to give Eisenkot a commanding advantage.
In practice, however, the path to a new government remains deeply uncertain.
Herzog announced on Thursday, November 5, that he would wait until Sunday, November 8, before deciding which candidate should receive the first mandate to form a government.
His hesitation reflects the complicated political alliances and mutual vetoes that could prevent the emergence of a viable coalition, despite Eisenkot’s numerical advantage.
The central question is no longer simply whether Netanyahu has lost his parliamentary dominance. It is whether his opponents can agree on a government capable of replacing him.
The 67–46 Split: A Political Defeat for Netanyahu, but Not Yet a Transfer of Power
The results of the presidential consultations reveal a substantial shift in Israel’s political balance.
Of the Knesset’s 120 elected members:
- 67 lawmakers recommended that Gadi Eisenkot receive the mandate to form a government.
- 46 lawmakers endorsed Benjamin Netanyahu.
- Seven lawmakers were not included in either candidate’s reported endorsement total.
The difference of 21 lawmakers represents a significant political advantage for Eisenkot.
It also demonstrates that Netanyahu can no longer rely on the parliamentary dominance that previously allowed him to govern.
According to the reporting, Netanyahu’s coalition had fallen from 68 seats to 53, losing its majority in the Knesset.
However, the presidential recommendations and the ability to form a government are two different matters.
Lawmakers may support giving Eisenkot the first opportunity to form a coalition without necessarily agreeing to serve in the same government.
That distinction is critical in Israel’s fragmented parliamentary system, where parties can share an interest in replacing a prime minister while remaining divided over security, ideology, religion and the composition of the next cabinet.
Eisenkot’s challenge is therefore to transform an anti-Netanyahu parliamentary majority into a functioning governing coalition.
Herzog’s Warning: “Mutual Vetoes” Could Block Both Candidates
President Isaac Herzog acknowledged that the numerical outcome of the consultations appeared relatively straightforward.
But he warned that the political reality was considerably more complicated.
“The results of the consultations may appear clear,” Herzog said, while pointing to “mutual vetoes between the blocs and within the blocs themselves.”
The president’s statement explains why he has not immediately assigned the mandate to Eisenkot.
Although Eisenkot has received the support of a majority of lawmakers, Herzog must assess which candidate has a realistic prospect of forming a government.
The difficulty lies in the competing conditions imposed by potential coalition partners.
Some parties may be prepared to support Eisenkot’s nomination but unwilling to participate in a cabinet alongside particular political factions.
Others may be willing to provide parliamentary support without formally joining the government.
These differences could determine whether the apparent majority survives the coalition negotiations.
Herzog’s decision on Sunday will therefore represent an important judgment about political viability, not merely an acknowledgment of the endorsement totals.
The Arab Parties Could Hold the Balance of Power
One of the most consequential elements of the post-election negotiations is the position of Israel’s Arab political parties.
Together, they hold 19 seats in the Knesset, giving them potential influence over the formation of the next government.
The Joint List controls 11 seats, while Ra’am holds eight.
Their positions are not identical.
According to the reporting, Ra’am has indicated a willingness to participate in an Eisenkot-led government.
The Joint List, meanwhile, is considering the possibility of providing external parliamentary support rather than becoming a formal coalition partner.
This distinction could prove decisive.
A government supported from outside by lawmakers who do not hold ministerial positions may be able to secure parliamentary votes without requiring every supporting party to participate directly in the cabinet.
However, such an arrangement could also create political instability if the parties involved disagree over major government decisions.
For Eisenkot, the challenge is to build a coalition broad enough to command a majority while remaining acceptable to parties with sharply different political priorities.
For Netanyahu, those divisions represent an opportunity to argue that his rival’s numerical support does not amount to a stable governing alternative.
Eisenkot’s Dilemma: Can 67 Endorsements Become 61 Reliable Votes?
Eisenkot enters the next phase of negotiations with a clear advantage.
His 67 endorsements demonstrate that a majority of lawmakers prefer him to receive the first opportunity to form a government.
But those recommendations do not automatically translate into 67 votes of confidence.
The difference is fundamental.
A coalition must be capable of agreeing not only on the identity of the prime minister but also on the allocation of ministries, government priorities and the management of major national challenges.
Israel’s security environment adds another layer of complexity.
Any incoming government would have to establish a coherent approach to defense, regional diplomacy and the country’s broader strategic relationships.
Parties that agree on replacing Netanyahu may not necessarily share the same policies on these issues.
Eisenkot must therefore negotiate across political divisions that could become more difficult once the discussion moves from who should lead the government to what that government should actually do.
The 67 endorsements give him political momentum.
They do not yet guarantee a workable majority.
Netanyahu’s Strategy: Survive the Deadlock
For Benjamin Netanyahu, the outcome of the consultations represents a serious political setback.
The endorsement of only 46 lawmakers leaves him well short of the 61 seats needed for a parliamentary majority.
Nevertheless, Netanyahu remains in contention for the mandate to form a government.
His prospects depend in part on whether Eisenkot’s potential partners can overcome their differences.
If those negotiations fail, Netanyahu could seek to exploit the divisions among his opponents and attempt to assemble an alternative parliamentary arrangement.
That possibility does not mean he has secured a viable coalition.
It means that the inability of his rivals to agree could prolong the political process and leave open further rounds of negotiation.
Netanyahu’s immediate political advantage lies in the fragmentation of the parliamentary forces seeking to replace him.
The more difficult it becomes for Eisenkot to reconcile competing demands, the greater the opportunity for Netanyahu to remain politically relevant despite his weaker endorsement total.
Why Sunday’s Decision Matters
Herzog’s decision on Sunday will determine which political leader receives the first opportunity to try to form Israel’s next government.
If he chooses Eisenkot, the president will effectively recognize the candidate’s numerical advantage and give him the chance to test whether the 67 endorsements can be converted into a governing majority.
If he chooses Netanyahu, the decision would place greater emphasis on an assessment of coalition viability despite the incumbent’s significantly lower level of parliamentary backing.
Either outcome would mark the beginning of another phase of negotiations rather than the automatic formation of a government.
The candidate receiving the mandate would still need to reach agreements with potential coalition partners and secure sufficient parliamentary support.
Failure could lead to additional attempts to form a government, extending the political uncertainty.
A Government Change Is Possible — But Israel’s Deadlock Is Far From Over
The political significance of Eisenkot’s 67 endorsements should not be underestimated.
They indicate that a majority of the newly elected Knesset favors giving Netanyahu’s principal rival the opportunity to form a government.
For Netanyahu, whose political career has repeatedly depended on his ability to build and preserve parliamentary alliances, the result represents a major challenge.
Yet the same figures also reveal the limits of parliamentary arithmetic.
The ability to defeat an incumbent politically is not necessarily the same as the ability to construct a durable alternative government.
The role of the Arab parties, the disagreements between potential coalition partners and the mutual vetoes identified by Herzog all complicate the negotiations.
Sunday’s decision will clarify who gets the first opportunity.
It will not necessarily resolve who ultimately governs Israel.
For now, the political balance has shifted in Eisenkot’s favor, but the country’s next government remains uncertain.
The most revealing assessment came from President Herzog himself, who cautioned that the apparent clarity of the endorsement results was undermined by “mutual vetoes between the blocs and within the blocs themselves.”
Source: pagenews.gr