Israel's New Knesset Erupts as Battle to Replace Netanyahu Begins

In a dramatic turn of events following the recent elections, Israel’s political landscape has entered a volatile phase. President Isaac Herzog formally tasked Gadi Eisenkot with forming a government on 11 November 2026, even though Eisenkot’s bloc fell short of a parliamentary majority. The ensuing negotiations have already exposed deep fissures within the Knesset, highlighted by an unprecedented walk‑out of Arab lawmakers during the national anthem and a fierce contest over whether the next administration will lean on Arab parties, ultra‑Orthodox factions, or attempt a national unity arrangement.

President Herzog’s mandate and the initial shock

The video report from JNS TV begins by noting that President Herzog, in accordance with Israel’s constitutional practice, asked Eisenkot to assemble a governing coalition. This move came despite Eisenkot’s bloc securing only 48 seats, well below the 61 needed for a majority. The president’s decision underscores the urgency of establishing a functional government amid regional security concerns, especially Iran’s ongoing nuclear ambitions.

From the outset, the task was framed as a tightrope walk. Eisenkot must either secure the support of the 19 Arab MKs who walked out during the Hatikva ceremony, or find an alternative path through the ultra‑Orthodox parties that have traditionally been reluctant to join a coalition led by a secular figure. The video highlights that the Arab walk‑out was a symbolic protest, yet it also signals the potential leverage those 19 lawmakers hold as “potential kingmakers.”

Mark Regev, a senior government spokesperson, is quoted in the footage as arguing that Israel needs political stability to confront Iran, strengthen ties with President Trump, and push forward critical domestic reforms. Regev’s perspective frames the coalition‑building process not merely as a parliamentary exercise but as a strategic imperative for national security.

The Arab walk‑out and its political weight

At 0:39 of the video, the camera captures Arab MKs exiting the plenary hall as the national anthem played, a rare and striking gesture. The walk‑out was led by members of Ra’am, an Arab party that has historically positioned itself as a potential coalition partner in exchange for policy concessions. Their departure was both a protest against the political status quo and a signal of their bargaining power.

Ruthie Blum, the co‑host, emphasizes that the 19 Arab legislators could become decisive votes in any coalition scenario. Their support could enable Eisenkot to form a minority government that relies on Arab backing for confidence votes, a model that would be unprecedented in recent Israeli politics. However, the video also notes the ideological tension: many right‑wing and religious parties have publicly refused to work with Arab parties, a stance echoed by statements such as “We refuse to work with the Arab parties” at 7:43.

The potential for an Arab‑supported minority government raises questions about policy direction, especially regarding security cooperation with the Palestinian Authority and the handling of the Gaza situation. Blum warns that deep ideological divisions could render such a coalition fragile, especially when confronting external threats like Iran.

Numbers on the table: Eisenkot versus Netanyahu

The report provides a clear snapshot of the parliamentary arithmetic at 5:16. Eisenkot’s bloc holds 48 seats, while Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud‑aligned bloc commands 53 seats. Neither side reaches the 61‑seat threshold required for a stable majority, underscoring the fragmented nature of the current Knesset.

These figures set the stage for two primary coalition paths. The first involves courting the Arab parties, particularly Ra’am, to secure the additional votes needed for a minority government. The second route looks to the ultra‑Orthodox parties, which together hold enough seats to push Eisenkot’s numbers above the majority line, but at the cost of policy compromises that could clash with Eisenkot’s campaign promises.

Mark Regev’s commentary suggests that a national unity government, combining forces of both Eisenkot and Netanyahu, could bridge the gap. He argues that such a coalition would provide the necessary stability to address Iran’s nuclear program and to maintain Israel’s strategic partnership with the United States under President Trump. Yet, the video also captures dissenting voices that question the feasibility of uniting these divergent factions.

Coalition options: Arab partnership or ultra‑Orthodox alliance

At 6:00, the video outlines the two divergent paths Eisenkot can pursue. The first path involves aligning with Ra’am and other Arab parties, which would require concessions on issues such as settlement expansion, security coordination, and civil rights. This route, while potentially granting Eisenkot a functional minority government, would also entail navigating the deep mistrust between Arab legislators and right‑wing elements in the Knesset.

The second path looks toward the ultra‑Orthodox bloc. These parties, while offering the necessary seats to cross the majority threshold, have historically demanded substantial budget allocations for religious institutions and exemptions from military service. Accepting their support could force Eisenkot to abandon key promises made during his campaign, a point highlighted by the video’s emphasis on “campaign promises to the contrary.”

Ruthie Blum challenges the viability of both routes, warning that ideological divisions could undermine any coalition’s ability to act decisively on security matters. She points out that the ultra‑Orthodox parties’ priorities may clash with Eisenkot’s agenda on national defense and economic reforms, while Arab parties may prioritize peace process concessions that could be politically costly for a right‑leaning government.

National unity: a contested compromise

Throughout the broadcast, Regev advocates for a national unity government that would bring together Netanyahu and Eisenkot. He argues that such a coalition would combine Netanyahu’s experience and Eisenkot’s fresh mandate, providing a united front against Iran and ensuring continuity in Israel’s diplomatic relations, especially with the United States under President Trump.

Blum counters this proposal by highlighting the “deep ideological divisions and conflicting national security priorities” that could make a unity government unworkable. She cites the refusal of certain factions to cooperate with Arab parties and the ultra‑Orthodox’s divergent policy goals as obstacles to a cohesive administration.

The video also notes that if Eisenkot fails to secure a coalition, Netanyahu could seize the opportunity to propose a national unity arrangement of his own, as indicated at 15:54. This scenario would likely involve Netanyahu retaining a dominant role while offering Eisenkot a junior partnership, a move that could further polarize the Knesset and fuel public discontent.

Future scenarios and the looming risk of another election

As the report draws to a close, it outlines three possible timelines for Israel’s political future. The first scenario envisions Eisenkot successfully forming a minority government with Arab party support, navigating a fragile but functional administration. The second scenario sees Eisenkot aligning with the ultra‑Orthodox, creating a majority coalition but at the expense of policy compromises. The third scenario anticipates a failure to form any viable government, prompting a new election.

The video emphasizes that the stakes are high, given the unresolved threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program and the ongoing security challenges in Gaza. Eisenkot’s decision to quit the war cabinet over Gaza, noted at 33:30, signals a potential shift in his approach to the conflict and could influence coalition negotiations.

Ruthie Blum’s final assessment warns that “they’ll choose revenge over compromise,” suggesting that political actors may prioritize partisan victories over national stability. The coming weeks will determine whether Israel can coalesce around a government capable of addressing both internal reforms and external threats, or whether the country will head toward another election, extending a period of uncertainty at a critical juncture for the region.

By Hannah Berg, Staff Writer

This article was produced with AI-assisted research and editorial support. Reporting is based on the source material cited below. Sources: JNS TV video report (11 November 2026); JNS TV; Global1.News