The recent parliamentary elections in Israel have brought forth an unusual political configuration, one that has unsettled the established equilibrium of power, called familiar party allegiances into question, and exposed the inherent complexities of the country’s constitutional process of government formation. The results of the election held on 27 October 2026 have made plain that the political alliance which sustains Benjamin Netanyahu, a dominant presence in Israeli public life for many years, no longer commands the parliamentary strength it once possessed. Yet it would be premature to interpret this electoral setback as an irrevocable exclusion from power. Israel’s parliamentary order is governed not merely by the relative number of seats secured at the polls, but by the capacity of political parties to assemble the requisite majority and arrive at an accommodation sufficiently durable to sustain a government.
The Israeli parliament, known as the Knesset, consists of 120 members, and the formation of a government requires the support of at least 61. According to the reported results of the recent election, the political bloc supporting Netanyahu has secured 53 seats, while the opposing political grouping, led by former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, has obtained 48. The remaining 19 seats have gone to Arab political parties, comprising 11 seats for the Joint List and eight for Ra’am. The resulting distribution has bestowed upon these parties a parliamentary significance of unusual magnitude: their support has become a consequential factor in virtually every plausible arrangement for the formation of a government. The reported voter turnout of 77.9 per cent has likewise been remarkable, placing participation among the highest levels recorded in several decades.
The principal significance of this election lies not simply in the diminished strength of Netanyahu’s alliance, but in the enlarged parliamentary weight of parties representing Israel’s Arab citizens. In a political society where the participation and representation of Arab citizens have long been subjects of ideological contention and political debate, the emergence of these parties with 19 parliamentary seats constitutes a development worthy of close examination. It affords them not only a more substantial voice in the legislative process, but also considerable influence in the negotiations through which the next government must be constituted. Should the 48 seats held by Eisenkot’s opposing political bloc be supplemented by the support of the Arab parties, the combined strength would rise to 67 comfortably above the threshold required for a parliamentary majority. Nevertheless, the arithmetic of parliamentary representation, however favourable it may appear, does not in itself guarantee the creation of a coherent or enduring governing coalition.
The difficulty arises from the profound ideological divisions that continue to characterise Israeli politics. Certain political leaders aligned with Eisenkot are receptive to the prospect of forming a government with the support of Arab parties; others, however, regard such an arrangement as incompatible with their electoral commitments and political identity. Consequently, the opposing bloc is not wholly united on the question of whether Arab parliamentary support should be incorporated into a governing arrangement. The Arab political leadership, for its part, maintains that a change of government in Israel must be accompanied by a more equitable form of political partnership between Jewish and Arab citizens. The matter, therefore, extends beyond the contest for the premiership. At its heart lies a more fundamental question: whether the political representation of Arab citizens is to be acknowledged as a lasting and consequential element of government, rather than remaining confined to the parliamentary arena.
On 3 November, leading figures within the Israeli opposition were reported to have convened in a joint meeting and expressed support for Gadi Eisenkot as a candidate for the premiership, while affirming their intention to seek the formation of a government in place of Netanyahu’s administration. This development introduced a further dimension into the contest over the composition of the next government. Meanwhile, President Isaac Herzog, following the formal confirmation of the election results, commenced consultations with the political parties. At the conclusion of the electoral process, the election authorities rejected allegations of widespread electoral fraud, stating that their investigations had disclosed no evidence sufficient to justify altering the declared results. This determination has brought Netanyahu’s allegations concerning electoral irregularities under renewed political and legal scrutiny.
It is equally important to recognise that Netanyahu has not been deprived of the premiership merely by virtue of the electoral outcome. He is expected to remain in office in a caretaker capacity until a successor government has been duly constituted. Once the President entrusts a member of the Knesset with the task of forming a government, that candidate is ordinarily afforded an initial period of 28 days, with a possible extension of 14 days in accordance with the applicable constitutional procedure. Should the first nominee fail to secure the necessary support, another candidate may be given an opportunity. If successive efforts prove unsuccessful, the possibility of parliamentary dissolution and a fresh election may arise. In the meantime, the newly elected members of the Knesset are expected to take their oaths of office on 10 November.
A further dimension of the present uncertainty concerns the relationship between Israel’s domestic political arrangements and the direction of its foreign and security policies. Throughout Netanyahu’s extended tenure, Gaza, the West Bank, Iran and the wider conflicts of the region have remained central to the country’s political discourse. The question of government formation is therefore inseparable from the future course of these policies. If a new administration emerges under Eisenkot’s leadership, it will inherit far more than the formal responsibilities of office. It will confront the intricate demands of domestic political accommodation, competing conceptions of national security, the Palestinian question and the rights of Arab citizens within Israel. It would nevertheless be erroneous to regard a change of government as an assurance of any fundamental alteration in Israel’s policy towards Palestine. Such a conclusion can be justified only by reference to the subsequent conduct and concrete decisions of the government that may eventually take office.
The possibility of a national unity government has also entered the political debate, while the persistence of the present impasse leaves the prospect of another election open. In these circumstances, it would be premature to pronounce categorically upon the success or failure of any particular candidate. A more considered assessment must await the progress of coalition negotiations, the final position adopted by the Arab parties, and the outcome of the constitutional consultations being conducted by the President.
The wider lesson of this electoral episode is that democratic government rests upon more than the numerical possession of parliamentary seats. Political legitimacy, the capacity for accommodation, and the meaningful representation of diverse sections of society are equally consequential elements of a functioning parliamentary order. Israel’s recent election has once again demonstrated that neither the authority accumulated through previous years of government nor the influence of an established political organisation can, by itself, secure the future possession of power. Netanyahu’s political prospects, Eisenkot’s capacity to assemble a governing majority, and the parliamentary strategy adopted by the Arab parties will remain among the principal forces shaping the country’s political direction in the days ahead. This election, therefore, represents more than a contest over the succession to government. It marks an important juncture in the continuing reconfiguration of Israel’s political institutions, the character of its democratic participation, and the national narrative through which its future is to be conceived.