By Haris Ahmed
The national voting in Israel held on October 27 has weakened Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s hold on power. It has also created a lot of worry about the land’s political future. The voting outcomes showed that the right-wing group led by Netanyahu lost its majority in parliament. At the same time, the opposing political group also failed to get enough seats to set up a government.
More importantly, the promises made by political chiefs during the election campaign and the strict limits they have placed against each other make it highly difficult to build a new government under the current balance of seats. Because of this, the chance of Israel heading to yet another early election after a long period of partnership talks is turning into a realistic possibility. In a situation like this, Netanyahu could stay in power as the leader of a temporary placeholder government and use a brand-new military strike against Iran to protect his political future.
Eisenkot in a Difficult Situation
The biggest issue in Israeli politics after the votes is that the majority of lawmakers who oppose Netanyahu have failed to reach a political deal to form a different government. While Netanyahu’s Likud Party and its partners won 53 seats in the 120-seat parliament called the Knesset, the opposing group led by Gadi Eisenkot won 48 seats. Because of this, the 19 seats won by Arab political parties have turned into the deciding factor in the fight to build a government.
With the Arab lawmakers added in, the parties against Netanyahu theoretically hold a majority of 67 seats. However, turning this edge into a real political partnership is very hard. While Eisenkot and his partners refuse to build a national unity government alongside Netanyahu, they also oppose bringing Arab parties into the government. So far, they have also failed to talk any party from Netanyahu’s group into switching over to their side.
Avigdor Liberman sits right at the center of this political tie. His strong opposition to any government that relies on the help of Arab parties shows how hard it is for Eisenkot’s group to form a partnership with them, even though they share the identical goal against Netanyahu. This setup has forced Eisenkot, who is trying to turn opposition to Netanyahu into a real political win by building a government, to look for a deal with the very religious Haredi parties.
However, the opposition made finishing army service exemptions for the Haredim one of the main topics of its voting campaign. Therefore, giving in on this topic would create a major political contradiction, and no deal has been reached so far. Furthermore, it will not be simple for the Haredi parties to leave their long-term partnership with Netanyahu. As a result, Eisenkot’s tries to build a government deal with not just a math issue, but also a major ideological and political standstill.
No Hope for Real Change
The voting outcomes show that two different desires exist at the same time in Israeli society: the wish to move away from Netanyahu’s leadership, and the willingness to keep the security plans set up during his rule. In other words, a major portion of Israeli voters wants a government that will follow security choices similar to Netanyahu’s, but without Netanyahu and his extreme right-wing partners.
Eisenkot’s growth is a direct result of this desire. The choice offered by the past military chief of staff is not based on a total shift in Israel’s plans toward Palestine. Instead, it promises to handle Israel’s security-first plan in a more organized and predictable way.
In fact, Eisenkot also opposes the building of an independent Palestinian state and supports destroying Hamas’s army and political tools. Therefore, the main difference between Eisenkot and Netanyahu is not about Israel’s goals for the region, but rather about which political chiefs and management styles should be in charge of hitting those goals.
On the other side, the high number of Arab voters who turned out to vote shows that opposition to the current government among Israel’s Palestinian citizens has turned into a strong political movement. Even so, leaving out the Arab parties demonstrates a deep problem that goes way beyond Netanyahu himself.
The Impact on Palestine and the Region
The voting is not expected to bring a big shift for Palestinians. If Netanyahu stays in power, Israel’s current security actions in Gaza will go on, while a possible government led by Eisenkot will also take the destruction of Hamas as one of its primary targets. Therefore, in both setups, it seems doubtful that military force on Gaza will stop or that a full political path toward building an independent Palestinian state will start.
However, a few differences might appear in the West Bank, depending on who makes up the new government. While Netanyahu’s extreme right-wing partners openly back the growth of housing settlements and land-taking actions, a government led by Eisenkot might use a more restricted path that pays attention to international pressure. Still, political figures like Bennett and Liberman make it hard for a shift like that to turn into a plan that respects Palestinian independence.
At the regional level, Israeli strikes on Syria are also expected to go on. The targets of restricting Syria’s army tools, beating Turkey’s influence in the area, and keeping up Israel’s growth plans are not limited to Netanyahu’s choices. It is also linked to the wider strategic path of Israel’s security organizations.
U.S. Voting and the Iran War
The timing of this political confusion in Israel is very important because of the U.S. congressional midterm elections. The Trump administration’s plans toward Iran might be influenced by both the local political balance inside the United States and the government-building crisis in Israel.
For Trump, the continuation of the fight with Iran has raised complaints over fuel prices, the U.S. economy, and the financial costs of the war. For this reason, before the voting, he tried to avoid another large military action while keeping the chance of a talking solution on the table. However, with the midterm voting now finished, the military choice against Iran will definitely be looked at again.
For Netanyahu, the time following the U.S. voting might offer a vital window of chance. If efforts to build a government in Israel fail, the political timelines of both lands might cross in a way that could raise the chance of a new military growth against Iran.
The Outlook for New Elections
In Israel, the path of giving a leader the job of building a government, holding partnership talks, and giving alternative choices a try can take weeks or even months. If these tries fail, the choice to hold yet another early election, and the voting path itself, could stretch the political confusion out to around six months.
During this time, Netanyahu’s role as the leader of a temporary government might give him a vital chance to build up his political power again. In particular, a new wave of strikes against Iran could move the focus of Israeli local politics right back to national safety. An action like that could give Netanyahu two political edges. First, it could push the government-building crisis into the background and bring safety topics back to the center of the political plan. Second, Netanyahu could use potential military wins against Iran to back up his political claim that his leadership is absolutely necessary for Israel’s safety.
However, it is not a sure thing that a new war would bring Netanyahu a voting victory. Iranian counter-strikes, financial costs, or the failure of a military action could instead weaken public backing for his leadership. Furthermore, if Trump chooses a talking agreement with Iran, Netanyahu might not be able to get the amount of American help that he wants.
