Israel's Election Deadlock: Netanyahu and Eisenkot Both Fall Short of Majority

Israel’s recent election has left the country without a clear path to a new government. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his main challenger, Gadi Eisenkot, both lack the parliamentary support required to form a stable coalition.

The final results show that opposition parties hold more seats than Netanyahu’s right-wing bloc. However, Eisenkot, a former military chief of staff, cannot reach the 61 seats necessary for a majority in the 120-seat Knesset without the support of predominantly Arab parties. His allies ruled out this option during the campaign, creating a structural impasse for both sides.

Netanyahu’s Likud party received the most votes, but his traditional coalition partners do not control enough seats to return him to power. Eisenkot’s center-right bloc faces a similar deficit. Both leaders now await a decision from Israel’s president, who will consult with party leaders in the coming days to determine who receives the first opportunity to form a government.

The president is not obligated to choose the leader of the largest party. Instead, the role goes to the candidate deemed most likely to assemble a majority. That candidate receives 28 days to secure support, with a potential extension of up to 14 days. If that fails, the president may turn to another candidate. The process could extend for weeks or months.

Eisenkot appears more likely to receive the most recommendations from newly elected lawmakers. Yet his bloc remains short of a majority without Arab-led parties, which represent 21% of the population. Eisenkot has argued that these parties’ positions on Hamas and the war in Gaza prevent a joint government. He cited their refusal to uniformly condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization or endorse its elimination as a military goal.

One potential outcome is a unity government between Netanyahu and Eisenkot. Reports from Israeli and U.S. media suggest President Trump favors this arrangement. Such a coalition would likely include moderate center and right parties, potentially easing cooperation with the Trump administration on Gaza reconstruction and normalization with Saudi Arabia. However, Eisenkot has pledged not to serve in a government led by Netanyahu, and the two must resolve questions about prime ministerial rotation.

A second option involves an Eisenkot government supported by Arab parties. Together, they would command over 67 seats, a comfortable majority. Yet this scenario remains unlikely given the campaign promises made by Eisenkot and his partners. The Arab parties could support the government from outside the coalition, but that arrangement still contradicts their stated positions.

If no majority forms, Israel may face another election. The president has urged leaders to avoid a repeat vote, especially after this election recorded the highest turnout in decades. Netanyahu may view a new vote favorably, as declining Arab turnout and reduced participation from liberal Israelis abroad could shift the balance. A fourth possibility is defection, though the math is difficult. Netanyahu would need roughly eight defectors, while Eisenkot would need about 13 if he excludes Arab parties.

During the stalemate, the opposition can advance legislation with Arab support. Eisenkot’s bloc is considering replacing the speaker of the Knesset and passing a bill for a state commission of inquiry into the failures preceding the October 7, 2023 attack. They may also move to reverse laws critics say weakened judicial independence. These steps allow the opposition to exercise power while negotiations continue.

The threat of renewed war with Iran could disrupt these political maneuvers. In his election night speech, Netanyahu stated Israel must complete its mission against Iran to remove an existential threat. Eisenkot warned Netanyahu not to use national security for political gain. Danny Citrinowicz, an Israeli analyst on Iran, noted that Netanyahu has an incentive to resume fighting during the government formation process. He said an emergency would increase pressure on Eisenkot to enter a unity government, a dynamic that played out after the October 7 attack when Eisenkot joined the war cabinet before resigning eight months later.