Israel has entered a highly sensitive political phase following President Isaac Herzog’s decision to task Gadi Eisenkot with forming a new government. The move marks a significant shift in the country’s political balance and places Benjamin Netanyahu before one of the most difficult political tests he has faced in years.
Herzog’s decision was far from a mere procedural formality. It reflected the outcome of parliamentary consultations, which showed that Eisenkot had secured the backing of 67 members of the Knesset, compared with 46 who endorsed Netanyahu, while seven members made no recommendation for either candidate. These figures indicate that Netanyahu, despite retaining considerable parliamentary weight through his political camp, no longer commands the support needed to secure a governing majority.
Nevertheless, interpreting this development as the definitive end of Netanyahu’s political career would be premature. He remains the head of the incumbent government, while his Likud party continues to hold the position of the largest single party in parliament. His extensive experience in managing political coalitions and navigating crises also gives him considerable room for manoeuvre and the ability to seek a realignment of political forces.
Netanyahu and the Battle Against Time
Netanyahu understands that Eisenkot’s success in forming a new government would mean his transition from the head of government to the opposition, with all the political, personal and party-related consequences that such a move would entail.
His immediate political interest, therefore, lies in undermining his rival’s efforts, or at least pushing negotiations into a deadlock that could open the door to other possibilities, including another attempt by Netanyahu to form a government or the calling of fresh elections.
In this context, his call for a national unity government can be understood as an attempt to reopen channels of negotiation with his opponents and perhaps retain a central role in any future political arrangement. However, this proposal faces Eisenkot’s refusal to join a government led by Netanyahu, making the idea of national unity more of a test of the parties’ positions than an immediately viable political settlement.It would be premature to claim that Netanyahu has a guaranteed strategy for bringing about new elections. Nevertheless, any failure by Eisenkot to form a government would present Netanyahu with a political opportunity, particularly since time is not necessarily working in favour of the new prime minister-designate.
Eisenkot: A Mandate Does Not Mean Power
On the other side, being tasked with forming a government does not make Eisenkot prime minister, nor does it guarantee his path to power. The real challenge begins now, against the backdrop of a divided parliament and political blocs carrying deep ideological differences. Some concern the future composition of the governing coalition, while others relate to identity, religion, military service and security policy.
Eisenkot has an initial period of 28 days, extendable by a further 14 days, to assemble a coalition capable of securing the confidence of the Knesset. The central difficulty is that the political forces that recommended him are not necessarily all prepared to participate in the same government.
The camp supporting him includes Jewish political forces as well as Arab parties, but the limits of cooperation among these groups remain a matter of dispute. The possibility of relying on ultra-Orthodox parties also brings the contentious issue of exemptions from military service to the forefront. Eisenkot has pledged to address this issue, a commitment that could make any understanding with those parties particularly difficult.
Eisenkot therefore faces a complex political equation: how can he assemble a parliamentary majority without abandoning the commitments that helped bring him to the position of prime minister-designate?
New Elections Again: A Possibility, Not a Foregone Conclusion
Early elections remain one of the possible scenarios, but they are not an automatic consequence of failure in the initial round of negotiations. Further constitutional and political procedures must take place before the country returns to the ballot box, and Netanyahu or another political figure could still be given an opportunity to form a government if the first attempt fails.
Nevertheless, a prolonged political deadlock could push Israel back into another cycle of elections, at a time when the country is facing substantial security, military, economic and diplomatic challenges.
Nor can this internal political struggle be separated from Israel’s international standing, particularly amid the continuing repercussions of the war in Gaza, tensions across regional fronts, growing damage to its international image and mounting questions about the cost of its security and military policies.
Beyond the Struggle for the Premiership
The most significant issue at this stage is not simply who will occupy the prime minister’s office, but rather the nature of the political transformation that Israel’s political establishment may undergo.
Netanyahu represents a prolonged era of government associated with the strengthening of the nationalist and religious right, as well as an approach centred on managing conflicts rather than resolving their underlying political issues.
Eisenkot, by contrast, comes from the military establishment and presents himself as an alternative leader, advocating the formation of a national emergency government and the restoration of public confidence in state institutions.
However, this potential transition should not be overstated as a fundamental shift in Israeli policy towards the Palestinians. The differences between the two men do not necessarily indicate a substantial divergence in Israel’s core security and strategic positions, particularly given that Eisenkot himself served as Chief of General Staff and was directly involved in managing sensitive military and security affairs.
Israel is now facing a political test that goes well beyond changing names and positions. Netanyahu is seeking to preserve his position and influence, while Eisenkot is attempting to turn his parliamentary mandate into a functioning governing majority. Between them stands a parliament whose competing blocs have yet to agree on a stable formula for government.
The coming days and weeks may prove decisive in determining whether Israel is approaching the end of the Netanyahu era or heading towards another round of political manoeuvring and elections.
Yet one fundamental point must not be overlooked: a change of prime minister, if it happens, does not necessarily mean a change in political direction, nor does it guarantee a shift in Israel’s approach to the Palestinian cause.
Ultimately, what matters is not simply who takes office, but the policies that will be pursued on the ground and whether the new leadership is prepared to reconsider the course that has brought the region to such a profound state of conflict and instability.
TunisianMonitorNews (Bassam Bani Ahmad-Jordanian Journalist | Tunisia)
