Israeli Politics: Opposition Weighs Minority Rule Amid Internal Friction

Gadi Eisenkot is moving forward with a plan to lead Israel’s next government without securing a full parliamentary majority. The former defense chief, who seeks to head the opposition bloc, has proposed forming a minority cabinet if his camp wins 58 or 59 seats in the upcoming election. This approach would allow the new government to take office after passing a confidence vote, relying on abstentions rather than 61 affirmative votes from Members of Knesset.

Polls currently show the anti-Netanyahu camp ahead of the incumbent coalition. However, the Zionist parties aligned against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fall short of the 61 seats required to guarantee stable governance under current agreements. Netanyahu’s bloc also lacks a clear majority in many surveys, leaving the outcome of the election dependent on small shifts in vote distribution and the electoral threshold.

Eisenkot’s strategy involves swarming in with a core group and then attempting to broaden support in the Knesset. He has not ruled out external backing from the Ra'am party, although no specific formula for that cooperation has been agreed upon. Legally, a government can be sworn in with a majority in a confidence vote, meaning abstentions are sufficient. This differs from removing an incumbent government, which requires a constructive vote of no confidence backed by 61 MKs.

The proposal has created tension within the opposition. Avigdor Liberman, leader of Yisrael Beytenu, categorically rejects the idea of a minority government, even a transitional one. He insists on a Zionist majority from the outset and has stated that another election would be preferable to a government that does not meet his conditions. Liberman has also suggested bringing Likud MKs into a government without Netanyahu, though he has not named specific members or confirmed ongoing talks.

Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, who lead the Beyachad list, share Liberman’s demand for a Zionist government. They refuse to rely on the votes or abstentions of Arab parties. Yair Golan, chairman of the Democrats, has not ruled out cooperating with Ra'am. A meeting between Eisenkot and Liberman this week ended with a joint call to increase voter turnout, but the two did not resolve their strategic differences.

Leadership rivalry remains a factor. Eisenkot aims to head the largest party in the bloc, while Bennett views himself as a natural candidate for the role due to his experience as former prime minister. The opposition is also nearing an agreement to replace Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana before any coalition deal is finalized. Controlling the speakership would allow opponents of Netanyahu to manage the parliamentary agenda, even if he remains head of a caretaker government.

Potential candidates for the speakership include Chili Tropper, Matan Kahana, and Elazar Stern from Eisenkot’s list. The Bennett-Lapid list has raised the names of Meirav Ben-Ari and Eitan Ginzburg. Efrat Rayten of the Democrats and attorney Oded Forer of Yisrael Beytenu are also in the running. No consensus candidate has been announced. Liberman estimated this week that up to one-third of outgoing coalition MKs might vote against Ohana, provided they do so in a public vote.

The bloc intends to use its potential majority to advance several legislative goals. These include establishing a state commission of inquiry into the events of October 7, modifying conscription laws, limiting the prime minister’s tenure, and repealing portions of the outgoing government’s judicial changes. Liberman also seeks a bar on serving as prime minister while facing criminal charges.

Party teams have begun coordinating on these issues, but no binding agreement exists on the details or the order of operations. Not every bloc member supports every proposed judicial change. A new speaker would not automatically secure a legislative majority, and laws targeting Netanyahu could face constitutional hurdles. The memory of the previous Bennett-Lapid government, which collapsed before completing its promised agenda, continues to influence internal debates.