Israel’s newly elected parliament has begun its term, but the struggle to form a government remains unresolved. Gadi Eisenkot has the presidential mandate and the support of factions representing 67 lawmakers in consultations. Transforming those recommendations into a stable coalition is a substantially more difficult task.
A new parliament, an old political deadlock
Israel’s 26th Knesset formally convened on Tuesday, 10 November 2026, following a parliamentary election that placed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud at the head of the largest individual party but left his established political bloc without a majority.
The inauguration marked the beginning of a new legislative term, not the installation of a new government.
Netanyahu remains caretaker prime minister while Gadi Eisenkot, leader of Yashar, attempts to assemble a coalition.
President Isaac Herzog formally entrusted Eisenkot with the task on 8 November, following consultations with the parliamentary factions elected in the 27 October contest.
Parties representing 67 members recommended Eisenkot for the government-formation mandate. Netanyahu received recommendations from factions representing 46 members, while seven lawmakers belonged to a faction that declined to recommend either candidate.
Those numbers gave Eisenkot the stronger claim to attempt government formation. They did not give him an agreed coalition of 67 members.
The difference has become the central issue in Israeli politics.
The official election verdict
Israel’s Central Elections Committee reported 5,691,396 valid votes from an electorate of 7,331,981 registered voters.
Likud secured 27 of the Knesset’s 120 seats, followed by Eisenkot’s Yashar with 21.
Be’Yahad received 12 seats and the Joint List 11. The Democrats and Ra’am each won eight, while Yisrael Beitenu, Otzma Yehudit and United Torah Judaism obtained seven apiece. Shas and Religious Zionism–Zehut secured six each.
The final distribution produced 11 parliamentary lists and no single party remotely approaching the 61-seat majority threshold.
Likud’s 27 seats represent 22.5% of the legislature, while its 20.51% share of valid votes illustrates the effect of proportional representation, vote allocation and the electoral threshold.
For Yashar, the comparable figures are 21 seats and 16.05% of valid votes.
Neither party can govern alone.
The election therefore transferred the decisive stage of political competition from the ballot box to coalition negotiations.
Recommendations are not coalition commitments
The figure of 67 recommendations has attracted attention because it exceeds the number required for an absolute parliamentary majority.
But Israel’s political system makes an important distinction between recommending a candidate to form a government and committing to support that candidate’s eventual administration.
The factions recommending Eisenkot have different policy priorities. Some disagree over the appropriate relationship between religion and the state; others differ on security, constitutional reform and the participation of Arab political parties in government.
The underlying parliamentary alignments are less straightforward than the presidential consultations suggest.
A broadly Netanyahu-aligned grouping accounts for around 53 seats. Eisenkot’s closer political partners account for around 48, while Arab-led factions occupy another 19.
These political categories are useful for understanding negotiations but are not equivalent to formal government coalitions.
Eisenkot could theoretically achieve a majority through agreements across some of those divisions. Whether such arrangements are politically sustainable is a different question.
The seven seats separating a 54-member hypothetical coalition from the 61-seat threshold may be mathematically straightforward. Securing those seats through negotiated political commitments is not.
The immediate legislative battle
The newly inaugurated Knesset has already become a forum for attempts to change the political and institutional direction established under Netanyahu.
Lawmakers associated with Eisenkot’s camp have advanced proposals concerning an official inquiry into the Hamas-led attacks of 7 October 2023, restrictions on prime-ministerial tenure and changes to the judicial framework.
These initiatives are politically important even before a new government takes office.
They provide an indication of the legislative programme favoured by parties seeking to replace Netanyahu.
However, introducing legislation does not establish that it has been passed or that a government exists with sufficient parliamentary backing to implement it.
Questions surrounding the Knesset speakership and committee leadership could also influence which proposals advance.
That creates a period in which the parliamentary majority and the caretaker executive may pursue competing agendas.
The 28-day constitutional clock
Eisenkot received the government-formation mandate on 8 November.
Under Israel’s Basic Law framework, the initial period for assembling a government is 28 days. The president may authorise an extension of up to 14 additional days.
The corresponding dates are 6 December and, if the full extension is granted, 20 December.
Those dates establish the available negotiation period, not a guaranteed timetable for forming a government.
If Eisenkot cannot assemble a coalition, the constitutional process provides further possibilities for selecting another candidate.
The formation of a government therefore remains an open political question despite the official election results and the completion of the Knesset’s inauguration.
Why the outcome matters beyond Israel
The negotiations take place during a period of regional uncertainty and significant economic pressure.
The Iran conflict, defence expenditure, fiscal commitments and Israel’s diplomatic relationships create substantial demands on the next government.
A coalition dependent on parties with fundamentally different positions towards regional security could face difficult choices over military operations and negotiations.
Domestic policy is equally consequential.
Judicial reform, religious exemptions, military service, taxation and the response to the October 2023 attacks are all issues capable of affecting coalition stability.
The next administration’s composition may therefore matter as much as the identity of the person appointed to lead it.
The Nine145 analysis
Israel’s election has produced three distinct numerical outcomes: Likud won the most seats, Eisenkot received the most recommendations, and neither outcome alone guarantees a governing majority.
The inauguration of the new Knesset makes the political challenge more immediate. Parliamentary business has begun, yet executive power has not changed hands.
For Eisenkot, the task is to turn a broad preference for an alternative government into a coherent arrangement capable of surviving confidence votes and policy disagreements.
For Netanyahu, the result preserves his position as caretaker prime minister while leaving open the possibility that Eisenkot’s negotiations may fail.
The next decisive development will not be another election count. It will be the emergence—or failure—of an agreement capable of commanding at least 61 members of the Knesset.
