At first glance, the results of this week’s Israeli general election may seem puzzling. Two figures, in particular, could give the wrong impression. First, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud emerged comfortably as the largest party in the Knesset, winning 26 seats, compared with 21 for its main rival, Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar party, which had been expected to lead the pack. Second, the Netanyahu-led bloc, with 53 seats, outperformed Eisenkot’s bloc, which secured only 48.
On the face of it, these results might suggest a personal victory for the incumbent prime minister and an unexpected success for Israel’s right. Yet they tell only part of the story. For a leader facing serious legal challenges over corruption, who was in office during the darkest day in the country’s history on Oct. 7, 2023, and whose record includes a long list of other failures, the fact that he remains in contention could be considered an achievement. But it is far from a victory — not for Netanyahu or for the parties that make up the current coalition. They have little prospect of leading the next government unless their rivals misread the bigger picture emerging from the results.
Admittedly, the outcome can hardly be described as a triumph for the opposition parties, which largely represent the Jewish electorate and identify themselves as the “change bloc” or “correction bloc.” Yet, when these parties are considered alongside a third bloc — one treated as separate only because of the peculiarities of Israel’s political reality, comprising the two Arab parties, the United Arab List, or Ra’am, and the Joint List — the picture changes significantly. The Arab parties appear, for the first time, to have come close to realizing their electoral potential, putting them on course to secure an unprecedented 19 seats in the new Knesset. Together, these forces give the opposition a clear majority.
Before examining the results in greater depth, and considering how Israeli voters have handed politicians an exceptionally difficult task, it is worth highlighting one striking figure: the strikingly high turnout. The fact that 77.7 percent of eligible voters exercised their right to vote is itself significant, although it does not tell the full story. An estimated 800,000 eligible Israeli voters live abroad, and only around 10 percent of them returned to vote. Israeli law generally prohibits citizens from voting from overseas, with exceptions for diplomats and certain merchant navy personnel. Against this backdrop, turnout represented an impressive level of participation in the democratic process. The figure, together with the long queues outside polling stations, suggests that voters had embraced the conviction that this election was among the most consequential in the country’s history.
The election has created an opportunity to reject Netanyahu and his toxic brand of politics once and for all
Yossi Mekelberg
Returning to the results, the stark truth for Netanyahu and his coalition partners is that they have lost 14 seats, falling from a 68-seat majority to just 53. Likud itself lost five seats. Shas, the Sephardi ultra-Orthodox party, saw its support almost halved compared with the previous election four years ago, while the ultra-nationalist parties registered a more modest decline. Equally, the Israeli public did not give the opposition parties representing much of the Jewish electorate an unequivocal mandate. Nevertheless, together with the Arab parties, they are on course to command a majority of 67 seats in the 120-member Knesset. This amounts to a clear vote of no confidence in the government and a demand for change.
Given Netanyahu’s and his government’s poor performance across almost every aspect of public life over the past four years, the results are all the more striking. His election campaign once again relied heavily on fearmongering, including on election day itself. Yet the outcome demonstrates that he retains a substantial and resilient support base, whose loyalty to him appears to transcend its allegiance to his party. The leaders of the change bloc, meanwhile, need to ask themselves some probing questions as they dissect a disappointing result — one that fell well short of their expectations and the projections of pollsters.
Nevertheless, one should not be misled by the optics of Likud emerging from the election as the largest party in the Knesset. In Israeli politics, what matters is who can command the support of a parliamentary majority, whether by forming a conventional coalition or by leading a minority government with support from outside the coalition.
As might have been expected, and to the country’s detriment, Netanyahu has immediately launched an unscrupulous campaign to cast doubt on the votes of Arab citizens of Israel. He has accused the parties representing them of large-scale electoral fraud, despite knowing that observers were present at polling stations across the country. His objective is twofold: first, to delegitimize the Arab parties’ impressive electoral success; and second, to undermine the legitimacy of any government in which they participate or which they support from the opposition benches.
With some tailwind from Washington, where US President Donald Trump has expressed support for keeping Netanyahu in power — an unwelcome partisan intervention in an ally’s domestic affairs — and reportedly from Israeli President Isaac Herzog as well, pressure is already mounting on Eisenkot to form what is being described as a national unity government with Likud. The two parties would still fall short of a parliamentary majority on their own, but joining forces would provide a foundation on which to build one.
For Eisenkot to agree would mean breaking his pledge not to sit in a coalition with Netanyahu. He could, of course, blame the voters for placing him in this predicament, but such a decision would amount to political suicide, particularly if it meant allowing Netanyahu to remain prime minister. In his desperation, Netanyahu might agree to a rotation agreement under which Eisenkot would eventually take over as prime minister. But Netanyahu has reneged on a similar arrangement before, breaking his promise to Benny Gantz — a move that contributed to Gantz’s eventual political demise.
What appears to be an almost impossible knot to untangle has, in fact, opened up several possibilities, primarily for the opposition. It is true that the opposition bloc was far from monolithic and, at best, had few issues on which all its component parties agreed. Disputes over who should become prime minister, together with an unwillingness to present a more ambitious alternative to a failing government, has cost the opposition support, including among Palestinian citizens of Israel.
Yet the opposition parties can — and should — recover from their disappointment by making effective use of the majority they command in the Knesset. They could begin by electing a new Knesset speaker, a position with considerable influence over parliamentary business. They could then seek to form a minority government with the support of at least one of the Arab parties and establish a state commission of inquiry into the events of Oct. 7.
Most importantly, the parties that together constitute a majority in the Knesset must take control of the narrative of change. Netanyahu is already trying to hijack that narrative, remaining true to the tactics that have defined much of his long political career: scaremongering, divide and rule. Israel has endured this politics for far too long. The election has created an opportunity to reject Netanyahu and his toxic brand of politics once and for all.
X: @YMekelberg