A major disagreement has emerged among Israel’s opposition leaders just three days before Tuesday’s Knesset elections, with Gadi Eisenkot exploring the possibility of establishing a minority government even without 61 seats, while Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Liberman insist they will not participate in a coalition dependent on the support of Arab parties.

The dispute could become a significant obstacle to efforts to replace Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, particularly if the election produces another divided Knesset in which neither the current coalition nor the opposition parties secure a clear majority.

According to a report published Saturday, October 24, the opposition parties are already discussing possible arrangements for forming a government after the election. Although they share the objective of replacing Netanyahu, they remain divided over how to accomplish that goal if their combined strength falls short of the 61 seats needed for a majority in the 120-member Knesset.

Eisenkot, chairman of the Yashar party, has raised the possibility of establishing a government supported by only 58 or 59 Knesset members, provided it can obtain enough votes to win an initial confidence vote.

Under Israeli parliamentary rules, a new government does not necessarily need the affirmative support of 61 Knesset members to take office. It must receive more votes in favor than against in the confidence vote, meaning that abstentions or absences could allow a minority government to be approved.

Eisenkot’s proposal would involve establishing such a government and subsequently attempting to expand its parliamentary support by attracting additional lawmakers from parties outside the original coalition.

The plan, however, faces strong opposition from Liberman, chairman of Yisrael Beytenu, who has repeatedly declared that he will not support any government lacking a majority of what he describes as Zionist parties.

Liberman made his position explicit earlier this month, rejecting Eisenkot’s suggestion that a minority government could serve as an interim arrangement until additional coalition partners were secured.

“We will not support any minority government, not even a temporary minority government. We need a Zionist majority government, period,” Liberman declared.

He also ruled out participation in a coalition involving Arab parties or the chareidi parties Shas and United Torah Judaism.

“Our position is clear and unequivocal: We will establish a coalition made up exclusively of Zionist parties. Without Ra’am, without the Joint List, without Shas and without United Torah Judaism,” Liberman said.

The position places Liberman at odds with Eisenkot’s willingness to consider alternative parliamentary arrangements if the opposition fails to win an outright majority.

Bennett and Yair Lapid, who are running together on the B’Yachad list, have also insisted that any government they establish must be based on a Zionist parliamentary majority rather than the votes or abstentions of Arab parties.

Their position creates a substantial challenge for Eisenkot, whose proposal could require at least some cooperation from Arab lawmakers if the Jewish opposition parties secure fewer than 61 seats.

Eisenkot has previously indicated that he would be prepared to pursue the formation of a government even if the opposition wins only 58 or 59 seats.

“If we don’t reach 60, under the circumstances, I will move to swear in a government even with 58 or 59 Knesset members. We will establish that government and immediately try to expand it with additional mainstream Zionist votes,” Eisenkot said in an interview with Kan 11 earlier this month.

At the same time, Eisenkot has maintained that he does not intend to include Arab parties in his coalition and has expressed a preference for establishing a government composed entirely of Zionist factions.

The distinction between formally including Arab parties in a coalition and relying on their votes or abstentions during a confidence vote has become one of the central issues dividing the opposition.

A government could theoretically be approved with fewer than 61 affirmative votes if enough lawmakers abstain, but such an arrangement would leave it vulnerable to future parliamentary challenges.

Eisenkot has not ruled out the possibility of receiving outside parliamentary assistance from Ra’am, led by Mansour Abbas, although no agreement has been announced.

Liberman and Bennett, however, have rejected the idea of establishing a government whose formation would depend on Arab parties, even if those parties remained outside the coalition itself.

Democrats chairman Yair Golan has taken a different position, indicating that he would not automatically reject cooperation with Ra’am.

The disagreement reflects broader divisions among the opposition parties over the composition of a future government, despite their common opposition to Netanyahu.

Liberman has suggested another possible route to forming a majority: persuading Likud Knesset members to break with Netanyahu and join a government led by the opposition.

He has claimed that some Likud lawmakers could be prepared to participate in such an arrangement, although he has not publicly identified any individuals willing to do so.

There have also been no publicly confirmed negotiations with Likud members concerning a possible defection after the election.

Liberman has indicated that he would consider Likud a potential coalition partner if Netanyahu were no longer leading the party.

His proposal would therefore require a significant political realignment within Likud or the broader right-wing bloc, rather than reliance on Arab parliamentary support.

The differences between the opposition leaders have become particularly important because recent election surveys have shown a fragmented political landscape, with the precise distribution of seats varying considerably between polls.

Some surveys have placed the opposition ahead of Netanyahu’s current coalition without giving the Jewish opposition parties enough seats to establish a government independently.

Other surveys have suggested that Netanyahu’s coalition could reach a majority, underscoring the uncertainty surrounding Tuesday’s vote.

The electoral threshold could also play a decisive role in determining the final distribution of Knesset seats.

Under Israeli election law, a party must receive at least 3.25 percent of the national vote to enter the Knesset. Votes cast for parties that fail to cross that threshold do not translate into seats, potentially changing the balance between competing political blocs.

With several smaller parties polling near the threshold, relatively modest shifts in voter support could significantly affect the coalition negotiations that follow the election.

Meanwhile, opposition representatives are discussing another parliamentary initiative that could be pursued even before a new government is formed.

According to today’s reports, there is growing agreement among the parties seeking to replace Netanyahu on an effort to remove Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana, a senior Likud member, from his position.

Unlike the formation of a new government, electing a Knesset speaker does not require a completed coalition agreement.

The opposition could attempt to assemble a parliamentary majority around an agreed candidate for speaker, potentially with the assistance of Arab lawmakers, even if negotiations over forming a government remain unresolved.

Replacing Ohana would give the opposition greater control over the Knesset’s parliamentary agenda, including the scheduling of debates and the advancement of legislative initiatives.

Such a move could also alter the balance of power between the Knesset and Netanyahu’s government if he remains prime minister in a caretaker capacity while coalition negotiations continue.

Several names have reportedly been discussed as possible candidates to replace Ohana.

Among them are Chili Tropper, Matan Kahana, and Elazar Stern of Eisenkot’s Yashar party; Meirav Ben-Ari and Eitan Ginzburg of the Bennett-Lapid alliance; Efrat Rayten of the Democrats; and Oded Forer of Yisrael Beytenu.

No agreement has been announced on a single candidate, and the success of such an effort would depend on the final election results and the willingness of the various parties to cooperate.

The proposal to replace Ohana illustrates how opposition leaders are examining ways to exercise parliamentary influence even if they cannot immediately agree on the composition of a new government.

For Netanyahu, the disagreements among his political opponents could become an important factor in post-election negotiations if the opposition wins more seats than his coalition but remains unable to assemble a governing majority.

The prime minister’s existing coalition includes Likud, Shas, United Torah Judaism, Otzma Yehudit, and Religious Zionism, although the parties have faced disagreements over military conscription legislation and other issues.

The chareidi draft controversy has also become a central point of division between Netanyahu’s coalition and several opposition leaders, particularly Liberman, who has strongly opposed exemptions for yeshiva students.

Eisenkot has likewise excluded the chareidi parties from his preferred coalition framework, citing disagreements over military service and other principles he considers essential to the next government.

Those positions further complicate the parliamentary arithmetic by limiting the number of parties available for potential coalition agreements.

The opposition’s difficulties have drawn comparisons to the political negotiations that followed earlier Israeli elections, when competing party leaders struggled to reconcile ideological differences despite agreeing on the need for a change in government.

In 2021, Bennett and Lapid established a coalition that included Ra’am, marking the first time an independent Arab party formally joined an Israeli governing coalition.

The current opposition leaders, however, are divided over whether any comparable arrangement should be considered following Tuesday’s election.