by Valentine Matta
Israel held legislative elections on 27 October 2026 to elect the 120 members of the 26th Knesset and determine the governing coalition that will succeed the 37th government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Against Netanyahu, but what for ?
The election results reveal a deeply divided political landscape. Netanyahu’s governing coalition has fallen from 64 to 53 seats. The characteristically secular Jewish opposition, led by Gadi Eisenkot, has secured 48, while the Arab parties, Ra’am and Hadash-Ta’al, have won a combined 19 seats. With no bloc reaching the 61 seats required for a parliamentary majority, the formation of the next government remains uncertain.
On paper, Netanyahu’s loss of a majority is a serious setback. But the opposition faces a problem that goes beyond parliamentary arithmetic: It is united by the desire to remove one man, not necessarily by a shared vision of what should come after him.
Much of the secular Jewish opposition has criticized Netanyahu’s handling of the war, the security failure of October 7, and his perceived attacks on core democratic institutions. Yet opposing his leadership does not necessarily mean rejecting the political choices behind it. Many challenge the way the war has been conducted without questioning the logic of perpetuating a permanent military confrontation between Israel and Palestine, Lebanon, Iran. They oppose Netanyahu. Opposition Leader Yair Lapid made comments, stating that “Netanyahu once again is taking pride in the accomplishments of the army, so that we forget his total failure,” the Times of Israel reported.
This distinction matters. Changing the person in power does not counteract the politics which precipitated his ascendency to Israeli premiership.
The support Netanyahu continues to receive from Israeli society, despite the security failure of October 7 and the loss of public confidence in his government, must also be understood in this context: Netanyahu continues to come across as an experienced leader in a country where security has become the dominant language of politics. His political survival reflects not only his own political strategy, but also the opposition’s difficulty in offering a fundamentally different vision of Israel’s place in the region and its relationship with the Palestinians.
But the question of Israel’s political future goes beyond the contest between Netanyahu and his opponents. It also raises a deeper question: whose voices count in shaping that future? This brings us to Arab citizens of Israel, whose political legitimacy has long been contested.
The Arab Israeli vote: a test of who belongs
The mobilization of Arab citizens of Israel is one of the most significant developments of this election. With 19 seats, the Arab parties have become a potentially decisive force in determining who will govern the country.
The electoral strength of the Joint List, an alliance of predominantly Arab political parties in Israel, comes after years of growing political marginalization of Arab citizens under the previous government. Inadequate police protection in Arab communities, insufficient public investment, and a sharp rise in homicides and internal violence all degraded civil engagement and the quality of daily life. For many Arab Israeli citizens, voting in this election cycle was not simply an expression of political preference, but a way of demanding recognition from a state they have increasingly felt abandoned by.
Yet the electoral weight of the Joint List, reflected in the number of seats it holds, exposes a deeper contradiction at the heart of Israeli democracy. Arab citizens of Israel have the right to vote and elect representatives to parliament, yet their place in political life remains contested by significant parts of the Jewish Israeli public.
Netanyahu and his allies made this tension particularly visible. They questioned the legitimacy of the results, alleging electoral irregularities and using the expression “Terrorists Stole the Election” to describe Arab community turnout. The message is difficult to ignore: Arabs’ exercise of democratic rights is subversive, threatening, and unwelcome.
This contradiction now extends to the negotiations over the composition of the next government. With neither political bloc able to secure a majority alone, the Arab parties hold considerable influence over the formation of a coalition. A Jewish-Arab coalition government would challenge long-standing political boundaries and require Jewish opposition parties to recognize Arab representatives as political partners, rather than as a source of politically expedient votes.
The stakes of coalition formation extend beyond the mandate of the next government. They will determine the kind of democracy Israel claims to be: one in which Palestinian citizens are only allowed to participate in elections or one in which they are also recognized as legitimate partners in deciding the country’s future.
The difference between replacing and changing
There is a paradox to calling this the most consequential election in Israel’s history. The stakes are rhetorically enormous, yet the possibility of a fundamental change in the country’s political direction remains ambiguous. Much of the opposition is united by its desire to remove Netanyahu. But a more difficult question remains: Would his departure change the political system he represents? And, fundamentally, can Israeli democracy persist without confronting the inequalities on which it rests?
On November 7th, President Isaac Herzog tapped opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot to form a government. The former army chief and head of the centrist-right Yashar party now has up to six weeks, with the possibility of an extension, to build a coalition and secure a majority of 61 seats in Parliament. This will require difficult compromises. Eisenkot must decide whether to seek a coalition with the Arab parties or to compromise Yashar’s campaign promises by allying with factions from Netanyahu’s own political bloc.
Eisenkot has promised to move Israel away from Netanyahu’s government, restore political stability and strengthen democratic institutions. He has also called for a more restrained approach to settlements and settler violence in the occupied West Bank. However, his rejection of Palestinian statehood and continued hardline positions on regional security place hard limits on this promised change.
The reality no election can erase.
While Israeli politicians are busy debating who should govern the country, the consequences of their indecisions continue to unfold elsewhere. And let’s not forget the exact shape of these consequences.
Let’s not forget that last Thursday, an Israeli military strike on Nasser Hospital in southern Gaza killed at least six people and injured more than twenty. Despite a nominal year-long ceasefire, Israeli strikes continue, and Gaza’s two million residents remain trapped in devastating living conditions with little prospect of recovery.
Let’s not forget that this year’s olive harvest in the occupied West Bank has been among the most violent in years. Israeli settlers have attacked, intimidated, and destroyed the livelihoods of Palestinian farmers.
Let’s not forget that a UN commission of human rights experts has accused Israel of committing genocidal acts against Palestinians in Gaza and crimes against humanity in the West Bank.
If the suffering of Palestinians is still not enough to prompt a political reckoning, perhaps Israelis should at least consider what this means for themselves.
Because let’s not forget that Israel’s international reputation is collapsing. According to the 2026 Democracy Perception Index, Israel received a net perception score of minus 24, ranking below Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran. The figures reflect something that can no longer be dismissed as isolated criticism: Israel has lost the world’s trust and is growing increasingly isolated.
These realities cannot be separated from the question of Israel’s political future. A country cannot claim to defend democracy while ignoring the violence carried out in its name. Nor can it expect to restore its international standing simply by changing its prime minister. Replacing Netanyahu may open a new chapter in Israeli politics. A new chapter does not necessarily mean a different story.
Until Israel is ready to confront the system it has built, talk of a new Israel deserves one response: Think again.
0 comments on “A New Israel? Think Again.”