In brief
On November 1, 2026 Israeli opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot announced he would form the broadest possible government or mobilize a parliamentary majority to push a state inquiry into the Oct. 7 attack, mandatory service for all Israelis, and repeal of Netanyahu‑backed judicial overhaul. With his bloc holding 48 of 120 seats and 19 Arab‑led seats, Eisenkot argued that the majority of voters rejected Netanyahu’s coalition and that Parliament, not the Prime Minister, grants confidence. He emphasized that his proposals could proceed with Arab‑led support without necessarily forming a traditional government.
On November 1, 2026 Israeli opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot announced that he intends to form Israel’s broadest possible government or, if that proves untenable, to mobilize a parliamentary majority to advance policy measures that he says reflect the will of the majority of voters. He cited the recent elections, in which his bloc captured 48 seats in the 120‑member Knesset, versus 53 seats for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition, and the 19 seats won by Arab‑led parties, to argue that the electorate rejected Netanyahu’s administration.
Xinhua reported that Eisenkot’s calculations included the Arab‑led Joint List and the Muslim Ra’am party, both of which are adamant opponents of the Netanyahu‑backed coalition. In a social media post, Eisenkot said, “A majority of Israeli voters, by a margin of more than half a million votes, have voted against Netanyahu’s government.” He credited that margin to the seats earned by the Arab parties and asserted that this signaled a clear parliamentary majority.
Let no one mislead: In Israel, it is the parliament that gives its confidence to the government, not the other way around.
While Eisenkot acknowledged that the formation of a conventional government would formalize the majority, he stressed that a functioning parliamentary majority could be achieved through other means, such as alliances with the Arab‑led bloc. According to Xinhua, he would not necessarily need to bring a full coalition to power to pursue legislation, but could rather rally the required votes.
Eisenkot outlined three key initiatives he seeks to advance: a state commission of inquiry into the Oct. 7 attack, mandatory civilian service for all Israelis, and the repeal of the judicial overhaul legislation approved by the Netanyahu government. He framed these proposals as measures to enhance national security, institutional accountability, and judicial independence.
The first initiative, a state inquiry into the Oct. 7 attack, seeks to investigate the circumstances and security failings that led to the terrorist assault on Israeli territory. Although no official policy statement had been issued about the inquiry prior to Eisenkot’s announcement, he said it would serve as a decisive step toward preventing future attacks and ensuring public accountability.
The second initiative calls for mandatory service for all citizens, a proposal that would broaden the legal duty for Israeli service beyond the current focus on military activities. Eisenkot argued that such compulsory service could strengthen civic bonds and improve national readiness, especially in light of the country’s ongoing security challenges.
The third initiative focuses on the repeal of a controversial parliamentary bill that had passed under Netanyahu, aimed at limiting judicial review of government decisions. Eisenkot described the bill as a “netanyahu‑backed judicial overhaul” and said that its repeal would restore checks and balances in the governing system. The move would also signal a return to a judiciary fairly perceived as independent by a broad swath of the population.
Given the composition of the Knesset, Eisenkot highlighted the pivotal role of the Arab‑led parties. With 19 seats, the Joint List and Ra’am provide a potential decisive bloc in a closely divided chamber. In adding this factor to his count of votes against Netanyahu, Eisenkot emphasized that the correct measurement of majority was the number of voters rather than just the seats held.
By insisting that the “parliament gives confidence to the government, not the other way around,” he underscored a perceived misinterpretation of the democratic process in Israel. The claim reflects a sentiment expressed by the opposition that the democracy’s constitutional check resides in the legislative body, not the executive’s ability to dictate confidence. The statement is consistent with Xinhua’s assertion that Eisenkot sees the Knesset’s confidence vote as the decisive mechanism for ruling legitimacy.
Civic implications of Eisenkot’s proposals are wide‑ranging. A state inquiry could potentially open public avenues to demand accountability from security agencies, while mandatory service would alter the civic responsibilities of all citizens. The repeal of the judicial overhaul could gradually re‑establish judicial independence and widen the public’s trust in democratic institutions. Together, these measures could reshape Israel’s political balance, influencing future elections, party coalitions, and court‑room dynamics.
While the announcement has yet to process through the Knesset’s formal mechanisms, Eisenkot’s messaging signals a willingness to leverage the legislative majority to pursue reforms, illustrating the continued friction between the incumbent coalition led by Netanyahu and the opposition. Public reactions appear to focus on both the potential benefits and risks of rapidly changing key constitutional and security policies amid uncertain regional security circumstances.
