Israel President taps Netanyahu's rival Eisenkot to form government

A mandate to form a government is an official assignment from Israel’s president. It gives Eisenkot the first opportunity to negotiate with parties and create a coalition that can govern. It does not mean he already has a majority or will become prime minister.

Herzog is expected to hand Eisenkot the mandate at the President’s Residence. Eisenkot then has 28 days to win enough political support. Herzog can add another 14 days if negotiations need more time. The Knesset has 120 seats, so a governing coalition needs at least 61.

Eisenkot’s task is difficult because his bloc has only 48 seats, while Arab parties supporting him have 19. He has ruled out serving with Netanyahu and set conditions for potential partners. If he fails, another candidate may receive the opportunity, and Israel could eventually face another election.

The election produced no bloc with the 61 seats needed to govern. Netanyahu’s religious-nationalist alliance won 53 seats. Eisenkot’s four-party, Jewish-led bloc won 48. Two parties representing Israel’s Arab minority won 19 seats combined and backed Eisenkot during consultations.

Likud itself won 27 seats, the largest total for any single party. Eisenkot’s Yashar party won 21, making it the second-largest party. These party totals do not automatically decide who governs. The key question is whether a candidate can gather enough lawmakers behind a coalition.

Sixty-one seats represent more than half of the 120-member Knesset. A government needs that level of parliamentary support to command a majority. Since neither main bloc reaches 61 alone, Eisenkot and Netanyahu face difficult bargaining over possible partners, outside support, or a unity arrangement.

Likud was the largest single party, but Israel’s system focuses on who may be able to build a parliamentary coalition. After the election, Herzog consulted the parties elected to the Knesset. Their recommendations helped him decide which politician should receive the first opportunity.

Eisenkot received 67 recommendations, while Netanyahu received 46. That gave Eisenkot a clear advantage in the presidential consultations. The figures did not mean he already had enough support to govern. They only gave him the first chance to negotiate with other parties.

Netanyahu’s alliance still remained the largest political force, with 53 seats, but it fell eight short of the 61-seat majority. Eisenkot’s bloc had 48 seats, and Arab parties backed him during consultations. He therefore appeared better placed to attempt coalition-building, even though his route to power remained narrow.

Eisenkot has three broad coalition paths. He could form a minority government with outside support from Arab lawmakers. He could reach an agreement with ultra-Orthodox parties traditionally aligned with Netanyahu. Or he could pursue a broad unity government involving Netanyahu’s Likud.

Arab support could help him survive without a full majority, but Netanyahu attacks any government dependent on Arab parties. Ultra-Orthodox parties may be difficult because their usual political alignment is with Netanyahu. A Likud deal could provide broader support, but Eisenkot has repeatedly said he will not serve in a government with Netanyahu.

Eisenkot also demands important commitments from potential partners. They must support Israel as Jewish, democratic, liberal, and egalitarian, respect the Declaration of Independence, back military or national service for all citizens, and oppose Hamas’s military and governing capabilities in Gaza. These conditions further narrow his choices.

The mandate is not Eisenkot’s only chance, but it is the first stage in a limited process. He has 28 days to build a coalition. Herzog may grant him another 14 days if more negotiating time is needed. The clock makes every agreement important.

If Eisenkot cannot form a government, another candidate can receive the opportunity. If that attempt also fails, lawmakers can nominate another candidate. The process therefore allows several attempts, but each one must still produce a government capable of governing.

Israel has roughly 100 days to complete the process. If no candidate succeeds within that framework, the country could be forced into another election. The immediate outcome depends on whether Eisenkot can bridge differences with Arab lawmakers, ultra-Orthodox parties, or Likud, despite his stated conditions and opposition to Netanyahu.

The article does not identify individual Arab lawmakers by name. It refers to two parties representing Israel’s Arab minority. Together, those parties hold 19 seats and backed Eisenkot during Herzog’s consultations, making their support potentially important to his coalition effort.

Their support could help Eisenkot’s four-party bloc, which has 48 seats, operate with outside backing or move closer to the 61-seat threshold. This is especially relevant because neither main bloc has a majority. The parties could therefore influence whether Eisenkot can govern, even without joining a full coalition.

Netanyahu has strongly opposed a government that depends on Arab parties. He called them “terrorism supporters” and warned that such an administration could not confront Hamas or protect Israeli soldiers. His statements show why Arab support is politically powerful but also highly controversial in the coalition negotiations.

Israel’s parliamentary system separates winning the most seats from forming a government. Parties compete for Knesset seats, then politicians negotiate to assemble a coalition that can command a majority. The largest party may lead those talks, but it does not automatically receive control.

Likud won 27 seats, the highest single-party total, yet Netanyahu’s alliance reached only 53. Eisenkot’s Yashar won 21, and his four-party bloc had 48. Herzog then considered lawmakers’ recommendations, which favored Eisenkot by 67 to 46, and gave him the first mandate.

The mechanism creates coalition bargaining after elections. Eisenkot must seek partners or outside support to reach the 61-seat threshold. Options include Arab parties, ultra-Orthodox parties, or Likud. Because each option has political costs, the election produced a continuing negotiation rather than an automatic government.