Israel’s 2026 parliamentary election has left Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bloc and the opposition bloc led by Gadi Eisenkot short of a majority in the Knesset, leaving the formation of the next government uncertain.

Exit polls released after voting ended on October 27 projected different seat totals for Netanyahu’s bloc and the opposition led by Gadi Eisenkot. The differing projections indicated that neither bloc was assured of a majority.

The Knesset, Israel’s parliament, has 120 seats, and a majority requires at least 61. The initial projections suggested that neither side had reached that threshold.

Netanyahu and Eisenkot blocs fall short

Exit polls from Channels 11 and 13 projected 51 seats for each of the two rival blocs, while Channel 12 projected 52 seats for Netanyahu’s bloc.

Although Netanyahu’s Likud party was projected to remain the largest individual party, its position did not automatically guarantee another term for the prime minister.

A partial count reported on October 28 put Netanyahu’s bloc at 53 seats, the opposition bloc led by Eisenkot at 48 and Arab-led parties at 19. These figures were provisional, with the counting and verification of special ballots still capable of changing the seat distribution.

Arab-led parties could influence government formation

Arab-led parties could influence the coalition arithmetic because neither main bloc had secured a majority in the partial count. However, their seat totals alone do not establish whether they will support either bloc in government formation.

However, the number of seats won by a party or bloc does not by itself determine who becomes prime minister. Government formation depends on whether a candidate can secure sufficient parliamentary support.

The final seat distribution and the positions taken by potential coalition partners will therefore be important in determining the next steps.

What happens next in Israel?

After the official results are announced, President Isaac Herzog is expected to consult representatives of the elected parties and assign the task of forming a government to the candidate he believes has the best chance of securing parliamentary support.

Coalition negotiations could take weeks. If neither side can assemble a government, the country could face further political uncertainty.

At the reporting stage described on October 28, the count was still underway, and the available figures had not established whether either bloc could secure a majority in the Knesset.

Israel’s general election has produced no clear winner, with exit polls indicating that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing bloc and the opposition led by former military chief Gadi Eisenkot are both short of the numbers required to form a majority government.

Projections released by Israeli broadcasters Kan 11 and Channel 13 put the two rival blocs at 51 seats each in the 120-member Knesset, Israel’s parliament. Arab parties are projected to win around 18 seats, potentially making them important to efforts to form the next government.

A majority requires 61 seats, leaving both sides facing uncertainty over whether they can secure sufficient support to govern. The exit poll figures also differ between broadcasters, highlighting that the final outcome remains unsettled.

Netanyahu and Eisenkot face a difficult path to government

The projections point to a closely contested election, with neither Netanyahu’s coalition nor Eisenkot’s opposition bloc demonstrating a clear route to a parliamentary majority.

The Channel 12 exit poll presented a slightly different picture, placing Netanyahu’s bloc at 50 seats and Eisenkot’s bloc at 52. Other projections showed the two sides level, underscoring the differences between the broadcasters’ estimates.

Netanyahu’s political future will depend on the final seat count and the negotiations that follow. Even if one bloc performs better than projected, it would still need sufficient parliamentary backing to form a government.

The results could lead to an extended period of political uncertainty as parties explore possible alliances. If neither side can assemble a viable coalition, another election could become a possibility.

Arab parties could influence coalition negotiations

Arab parties are projected to win approximately 18 seats, giving them potential influence in the post-election negotiations.

One possible route for Eisenkot’s camp would involve cooperation with Arab-led parties. However, such an arrangement could face political obstacles and risk alienating other opposition groups.

The extent to which these parties can influence the next government will depend on the final results and the willingness of rival political factions to negotiate.

Final results remain uncertain

The exit polls are preliminary estimates and may differ from the official results. The final seat distribution will determine which political leader has the strongest opportunity to form a governing coalition.

The election has therefore left Israel facing uncertainty over its next government, with both major blocs short of the majority required to govern independently.

Until the final count and coalition discussions clarify the numbers, Netanyahu’s return to power and the opposition’s ability to replace his government remain unresolved.

India has reiterated its position that all permanent members of a reformed United Nations Security Council must have veto power for as long as the provision exists. New Delhi has opposed proposals to create a separate category of permanent members without the same privileges as the existing five permanent members.

India’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Parvathaneni Harish, outlined the country’s position during a debate on veto powers at the UN General Assembly on October 26.

India argued that granting permanent membership without veto rights would create unequal categories within the Council rather than address the existing imbalance in its decision-making structure.

India opposes unequal permanent membership

India said that any expansion of the Security Council should ensure that all permanent members enjoy equal rights and responsibilities.

In his statement, Harish said that a new category of permanent members, whether with or without veto powers, would complicate an already difficult reform process and risk reinforcing existing inequalities.

He also argued that creating long-term or permanent positions without veto rights would effectively leave the new members with second-class status, without fundamentally changing the decision-making influence of the existing permanent members.

India’s position is aligned with the Common African Position on Security Council reform, according to the statement delivered by its representative.

India calls for comprehensive UN Security Council reforms

India has called for a broader reform process that addresses the Council’s membership categories, veto powers, regional representation, size and working methods.

Harish said negotiations should begin at the earliest, with clearly defined timelines and milestones. India also called for text-based negotiations, which would allow member states to work towards a formal negotiating text.

India maintained that addressing veto powers in isolation would not be sufficient to change the Council’s existing decision-making dynamics.

The country has long called for an expansion of both permanent and non-permanent membership, arguing that the Council’s structure should reflect contemporary geopolitical realities rather than the international order established after the Second World War.

India highlights concerns over the use of veto power

India also stressed that veto power carries significant responsibility and should be exercised with restraint, particularly on matters concerning international peace and security.

Harish said the veto should not become an instrument of narrow political expediency.

According to his statement, the veto had been exercised 331 times on around 200 resolutions over the United Nations’ history. He also noted that most vetoes, or threats to use them, had come from three of the five permanent members.

India further highlighted what it described as an effective or de facto veto, in which the practice of consensus can allow a single Council member to block certain proposals, including presidential statements, press statements and decisions of sanctions committees.

The Indian representative argued that such practices can obstruct decisions without a formal veto being cast.

Which countries currently hold veto power?

The UN Security Council has 15 members, including five permanent members and 10 non-permanent members elected for two-year terms.

The five permanent members are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. They hold veto power under the Council’s existing voting arrangements.

Under Article 27 of the UN Charter, substantive decisions require at least nine affirmative votes, including the concurring votes of the permanent members, subject to the applicable rules on abstentions.

India’s latest statement reiterates that any future expansion of permanent membership should not create a new group of permanent members with fewer rights than the existing five.

The country has called for comprehensive negotiations to reform the Council’s composition and decision-making system.