Key Takeaways
- • Israel's October 28, 2026 election produced no clear winner, with eleven elected parties split between pro-Netanyahu and anti-Netanyahu blocs, and neither side has a clear path to the 61-seat majority needed to form a coalition.
- • Netanyahu remains in office as caretaker prime minister while coalition talks proceed, and Carnegie scholars warn he may use that period to influence coalition formation.
- • Benny Eisenkot, the main alternative candidate, would have to either reach out to Arab parties or make concessions to ultra-Orthodox parties on universal conscription, breaking campaign promises to "unite Israel."
- • Carnegie analysts expect Israel's Gaza policy, including its approach to the Trump Plan and Board of Peace, to change little regardless of the outcome, and Israel-Iran confrontation remains a real possibility.
- • U.S. politics could shape the next government, as a possible Democratic majority in Congress after the midterms could push to reduce U.S. military assistance to Israel and wind down involvement in the Iran war.
Summary
Israel's election on Tuesday, October 27, 2026, let individual Israelis choose their leaders but did not produce a government, according to Carnegie Endowment for International Peace scholars writing in Emissary. The eleven elected parties divide between pro-Netanyahu and anti-Netanyahu blocs, and neither has a clear route to the 61-seat majority needed for a coalition. Parties categorized by pollsters as Arab are effectively excluded from the process, even though the electoral system has never given Palestinian citizens more seats.
Netanyahu, who lost his majority, will remain as caretaker prime minister during coalition negotiations. Carnegie's analysts warn that a figure as widely mistrusted as Netanyahu could use that position to shape coalition formation. Benny Eisenkot would face his own dilemma: reaching out to Arab parties, which the right treats as near treason, or appealing to ultra-Orthodox parties by abandoning universal conscription. Either path would break his pledge to unite Israel. The scholars also describe the election as a referendum on Netanyahu's vision of a "super-Sparta" and on his refusal to hold an inquiry into the October 7 attacks.
On Palestinian issues, Carnegie contributors argue that a Netanyahu-led government would likely accelerate military escalation and expulsion policies in the occupied Palestinian territories. Eisenkot may take a more strategic approach focused on the economy and Israel's international reputation, and may release withheld Palestinian Authority tax revenues, but he opposes a Palestinian state and a full withdrawal from Gaza. Analysts say the Board of Peace and the Trump Plan for Gaza are unlikely to see meaningful change under either leader.
On Iran, the scholars note that Israel and Iran have refrained from strikes since June 8, when U.S. President Donald Trump demanded a ceasefire during what they describe as an Iran war now in its eighth month. They say Netanyahu pressed for renewed attacks before the vote, and that a Netanyahu win could increase pressure for strikes, especially if Trump follows through on threats after the U.S. midterms. Eisenkot, a former commander who conceived the Dahiyeh doctrine, is also viewed as likely to treat Iran as a military threat, though he has not ruled out a U.S.-led diplomatic solution.
Finally, Carnegie scholars highlight U.S. factors. Trump endorsed Netanyahu, and Eisenkot is a relative unknown to the administration. If Democrats win a majority in Congress after the midterms, the next Israeli government could face pressure to reduce U.S. military assistance. The scholars conclude that the Israeli political impasse is likely to continue regardless of the outcome.
Netanyahu, who lost his majority, will remain as caretaker prime minister during coalition negotiations. Carnegie's analysts warn that a figure as widely mistrusted as Netanyahu could use that position to shape coalition formation. Benny Eisenkot would face his own dilemma: reaching out to Arab parties, which the right treats as near treason, or appealing to ultra-Orthodox parties by abandoning universal conscription. Either path would break his pledge to unite Israel. The scholars also describe the election as a referendum on Netanyahu's vision of a "super-Sparta" and on his refusal to hold an inquiry into the October 7 attacks.
On Palestinian issues, Carnegie contributors argue that a Netanyahu-led government would likely accelerate military escalation and expulsion policies in the occupied Palestinian territories. Eisenkot may take a more strategic approach focused on the economy and Israel's international reputation, and may release withheld Palestinian Authority tax revenues, but he opposes a Palestinian state and a full withdrawal from Gaza. Analysts say the Board of Peace and the Trump Plan for Gaza are unlikely to see meaningful change under either leader.
On Iran, the scholars note that Israel and Iran have refrained from strikes since June 8, when U.S. President Donald Trump demanded a ceasefire during what they describe as an Iran war now in its eighth month. They say Netanyahu pressed for renewed attacks before the vote, and that a Netanyahu win could increase pressure for strikes, especially if Trump follows through on threats after the U.S. midterms. Eisenkot, a former commander who conceived the Dahiyeh doctrine, is also viewed as likely to treat Iran as a military threat, though he has not ruled out a U.S.-led diplomatic solution.
Finally, Carnegie scholars highlight U.S. factors. Trump endorsed Netanyahu, and Eisenkot is a relative unknown to the administration. If Democrats win a majority in Congress after the midterms, the next Israeli government could face pressure to reduce U.S. military assistance. The scholars conclude that the Israeli political impasse is likely to continue regardless of the outcome.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.