In contrast, anti-Netanyahu parties reached 67 seats. However, the result does not guarantee a change of power. Because while anti-Netanyahu Jewish parties have only 48 MPs, the other 19 seats that determine the political balance are in the hands of Arab parties supported by Palestinian voters.
Although President Isaac Herzog's assignment of former Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot to form the government strengthens the expectation that the Netanyahu era may end, ideological differences in the parliament pose serious obstacles to the new government. Moreover, this crisis is gaining a much more complex dimension by combining with Netanyahu's ongoing corruption cases, the possible leadership struggle within the Likud Party and US President Donald Trump's Middle East calculations.
What is being discussed in Israel is not just who will sit in the prime minister's chair; Whether the political order established by Netanyahu can survive and how a possible change of power will affect the regional balance of power.
He Lost at the Ballot Box and Did Not Withdraw from the Power Struggle
For Netanyahu, the most striking contradiction revealed by the elections is that although the Likud Party he leads is the largest political force in the parliament with 27 deputies, it cannot reach the majority to form a government. In the recommendations made to President Herzog after the elections, it is stated that 67 MPs supported Eisenkot and 46 MPs supported Netanyahu. Thus, while the task of forming the government was given to Eisenkot, Netanyahu lost the political initiative.
However, Israel's coalition system does not require a leader who loses a majority in the elections to completely withdraw from the political struggle. Eisenkot, who needs the support of at least 61 MPs to form a government, has a 28-day period, which can be extended by 14 days. If an agreement cannot be reached between opposition parties, options to form a new government will be evaluated; If the political deadlock continues, the possibility of re-election will come to the fore.
In such a scenario, Netanyahu will be able to remain in the prime minister's office until the new government takes office. The fact that Netanyahu has turned past coalition crises into political opportunities strengthens the assessment that he can implement a similar strategy again. Therefore, the result of the ballot box does not indicate that Netanyahu's political career is over, but that his struggle to maintain his power has entered a more difficult phase.
19 Palestinian MPs Became the Key to Israeli Politics
One of the most important political messages of the election results was that the representation power of Palestinian Israeli citizens in the parliament had reached a level that could determine the fate of the government. The 19 seats won by Arab parties, combined with the 48 MPs of anti-Netanyahu Jewish parties, create a strong majority of 67 members.
However, this is exactly where the fundamental contradiction of Israeli politics emerges. Some opposition parties, who want to remove Netanyahu from power, are not willing to form a government with Palestinian MPs who can help them achieve the same goal. Eisenkot's distance from the coalition with Arab parties during the election campaign turned into one of the most important ideological obstacles in the process of forming a government. On the other hand, Democratic Party leader Yair Golan has a more open attitude to political cooperation with Arab MPs.
The Palestinian parties' recommendation of Eisenkot to President Herzog showed that they were ready to play a role in the parliamentary system to end the Netanyahu era. However, if this support is not reciprocated in the government formation, it may further weaken Palestinian voters' trust in Israeli political institutions. This debate, which takes place at a time when human rights organizations describe Israel's practices against Palestinians as apartheid, is not just a coalition dispute.
The main problem is to what extent the political will of Palestinian citizens will be represented in government decisions, while their votes are considered decisive in parliamentary balances. Failure to overcome this contradiction may further deepen the democracy debate in Israel.
Military Service Exemption for Ultra-Orthodox Locks Down Coalition
The second option that Eisenkot may consider to form a government is to attract the ultra-Orthodox Jewish parties Shas and United Torah Judaism, which are among Netanyahu's traditional allies, to his side.
A total of 13 deputies from these two parties could form a 61-seat majority if they join the 48-member Jewish opposition bloc supporting Eisenkot. However, the biggest obstacle to this formula is the issue of exempting Haredi youth from compulsory military service, which has polarized Israeli society for many years.
Ultra-Orthodox parties want to preserve the exemption from military service for young people studying in religious educational institutions and to secure public funding for religious schools. Eisenkot, on the other hand, put forward the participation of all citizens in military or national service obligation as one of his main political commitments in his election campaign. Yair Golan also argues that ultra-Orthodox youth should serve in the military, join the workforce and respect the secular way of life.
Israel is Our Home Party leader Avigdor Liberman's move towards a line more open to compromise with religious parties is not enough to resolve this conflict on its own. Because maintaining the military exemption would mean Eisenkot would step back from the fundamental promises he made to his voters.
Therefore, negotiations to form a government bring the deep social division in Israel, shaped by secularism, religious privileges, sharing of state resources and military service obligation, back to the center of the political agenda.
Netanyahu's Last Trump card: National Unity Government and Early Elections
Although the task of forming the government was given to his rival, Netanyahu keeps the option of a national unity government on the agenda in order not to be left out of the political game. Netanyahu, who wants the far-right Religious Zionism and Jewish Power parties and ultra-Orthodox movements to take part in the new government in addition to Likud, argues that an administration based on the support of Arab parties will create problems for Israel's security.
Thus, he aims to influence the nationalist wing of the opposition and narrow down the options available to Eisenkot. However, the Yaşar Party, led by Eisenkot, rejected Netanyahu's offer to join a government that would be formed while preserving his current partners. On the opposition front, it is also being discussed that Likud MPs should part ways with Netanyahu's far-right partners and support a broader-based coalition.
Another possibility is the formation of a government between Netanyahu and Eisenkot, in which the prime ministership will be held alternately. However, due to Netanyahu's ongoing trial, legal obstacles regarding ministerial posts other than the prime minister's office and the political distrust experienced in the past make this option quite fragile.
The subsequent collapse of the rotation agreement that Netanyahu made with Benny Gantz in 2020 sets an important example for the future of a similar agreement. If Eisenkot cannot form a government and other options are exhausted, the possibility of early elections will become stronger.
In this case, Netanyahu will be able to continue his political struggle as the incumbent prime minister. However, re-election does not mean that the right-wing bloc will regain its majority, and it may also cause the current political deadlock to deepen further.
The Biggest Danger for Netanyahu: Corruption Cases
The most critical dimension of the political showdown in Israel for Netanyahu is the corruption trials that have been going on for years. Netanyahu faces accusations of bribery, fraud and breach of trust in the cases publicly known as files numbered 1000, 2000 and 4000.
Netanyahu, who is on trial on three separate charges, including bribery, in file number 4000, is also accused of fraud and abuse of trust in other files. In Israeli law, the penalty for bribery can be up to 10 years in prison, and the penalty for other crimes can be up to three years in prison. Netanyahu denies all accusations and maintains that the investigations against him are carried out for political purposes.
The trial of Netanyahu, who completed his own testimony process after 98 hearings in June, continues. While hearing other witnesses, the court also evaluates objections regarding the legal validity of procedural actions during the investigation process. Finally, on November 5, the possibility of hearing the government's legal advisor regarding investigation permits and some procedural procedures was brought to the agenda.
Netanyahu's amnesty application to President Herzog in November 2025 also revealed the political dimension of this legal pressure. Herzog's statement in April 2026 that he would not consider the amnesty request until legal compromise options were exhausted limited Netanyahu's possibility of reaching a quick solution this way. Although there is no final conviction yet, the consequences of a possible verdict regarding his ability to hold public office could seriously affect Netanyahu's political future. Thus, for Netanyahu, the struggle to maintain power is increasingly intertwined with his legal future.
Post-Netanyahu Period and Leadership Struggle in Likud
The possibility of Netanyahu losing his post as prime minister may open the door to a new era within Likud, the most powerful political organization of the Israeli right. Likud, which emerged as the first party in the elections with 27 deputies, has brought together right-wing, religious and nationalist movements under the same umbrella of power for many years, thanks to Netanyahu's personal political weight.
However, recent elections show that this alliance model has reached the limits of its capacity to produce parliamentary majorities. While Netanyahu's political presence keeps Likud voters together, it is seen as an obstacle to new coalitions that can be formed with centrist parties. This situation may bring to the agenda the search for a leadership within the party that may turn to different alliances after Netanyahu.
However, the fact that there is not yet a strong and agreed upon name within Likud who can replace Netanyahu strengthens the current leader's hand. Netanyahu's influence on the party base may enable him to continue the political struggle even if he loses the prime ministership.
However, the aggravation of corruption cases, the failure of attempts to form a government, and the increase in the political costs of alliances with religious parties may change the balances within Likud. The real issue for the future of the Israeli right is whether the political system shaped around Netanyahu's personal leadership can adapt to new conditions. Because Netanyahu's departure from power may mean not only the change of a prime minister, but also the reorganization of power relations on which right-wing politics have been based for nearly thirty years.
Trump's Strategic Calculation: Netanyahu or Stability in Israel?
In the international dimension of the government crisis in Israel, the future of US President Donald Trump's political relationship with Netanyahu comes to the fore. Trump's support for Netanyahu before the elections and his statement to Axios on October 28 that he could intervene to establish a national unity government show that Washington is closely following the political developments in Israel. However, President Herzog's decision to give the task of forming a government to Eisenkot presented a new strategic choice for the American administration.
According to evaluations reported by Israeli Channel 12 television, some circles close to Trump want Eisenkot to quickly form a government and end the political uncertainty in Israel. On the other hand, the fact that American officials stated that there has been no decision regarding direct intervention in the coalition talks prevents the conclusion that Washington has clearly changed sides yet.
Although the years-long personal and political relationship with Netanyahu is important for Trump, the priorities of the American administration are not limited to the political future of the Israeli Prime Minister. Managing tensions with Iran, the future of Gaza, developing diplomatic relations with Arab countries and maintaining regional security arrangements cause Washington to need a strong and stable interlocutor in Israel.
The harsh stance of Netanyahu's far-right partners on the Palestinian issue is seen as a factor that may complicate some American diplomatic initiatives. Therefore, the main question before the Trump administration is to what extent Netanyahu's political presence serves the American strategy. However, no matter how strong Washington's influence is, the final factor that will determine the fate of the government will be the parliamentary majority in the Knesset.
New Security Equation on the Line of Iran, Gaza and Lebanon
The most important outcome of the power struggle in Israel for the Middle East will be the path that the government to be established will follow in its policies on Iran, Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and Syria. For many years, Netanyahu has been pursuing a harsh strategy that defines Iran's nuclear capacity and regional military influence as Israel's main security threat.
At a time when the possibilities of diplomatic contact between Washington and Tehran are being evaluated, while military options are also on the agenda, the political uncertainty in Israel makes regional security calculations more complicated. However, the fact that former Chief of General Staff Eisenkot became prime minister does not mean that there will be a radical softening in Iran policy. Eisenkot's military background and security-centered approach suggest that Israel's deterrence strategy against Iran can be largely preserved.
The real difference may arise in the nature of coordination with Washington and the leeway given to diplomatic options. There is a possibility of similar continuity regarding Gaza and the West Bank. Although the exclusion of Netanyahu's far-right partners from the government may lead to changes in some policies, fundamental disagreements regarding the national rights of Palestinians, the future of the occupied lands and the management of Gaza remain.
On the other hand, Netanyahu's efforts to unite right-wing voters by re-emphasizing the security agenda in the event of early elections are also considered among the possible political scenarios. Although it is possible that a new military escalation with Iran or Hezbollah could have such an impact on domestic politics, there is no confirmed evidence that this was planned as a conscious election strategy. Therefore, the combination of the political crisis in Israel with regional conflicts poses a serious risk that may affect not only the future of the new government but also the search for a diplomatic solution in the Middle East.
The End of the Netanyahu Era or the Beginning of Israel's Structural Crisis?
The picture revealed by the October 27 elections in Israel is beyond the possibility of Netanyahu losing power, but also changes in the political and social structure of the country.
