'Life and death': What's at stake for diaspora communities as Israel heads to the polls

A diaspora community is a population living outside its original country or region while maintaining social, family, cultural or political connections there. In this article, it refers to people from Israel, Palestine and other Middle Eastern communities who now live in Australia. Their distance does not remove their personal stake in events back home.

The article shows this through several Australian residents. Nirit Eylon lives in Melbourne but is flying to Israel to vote. Palestinian Australian academic Shamikh Badra lost close family members in the Gaza war. SBS also spoke with people from Jewish, Israeli, Palestinian, Lebanese and Iranian communities about the election.

These communities matter because conflict crosses borders through family ties, political concerns and personal loss. Their views differ on peace, security and coexistence, but those interviewed share a belief that Israel cannot continue on its current path. The article presents diaspora voices as an important part of the election’s wider international impact.

Israeli citizens living abroad are returning because Israel does not allow citizens outside its borders to vote from overseas. The approaching election is also viewed by many as unusually important. Expats see it as a choice between competing visions of Israel, including liberal democratic values and religious nationalism.

Nirit Eylon, who has lived in Melbourne for 21 years, is flying back specifically to vote. She says the election is not simply about left versus right, but about “right and wrong”. Shahar Burla says around 20 people in his immediate circle are also planning to return, calling this very unusual.

The journey could involve a large number of voters. The US-based Fly&Vote initiative, which helps facilitate travel, estimates that as many as 53,000 Israeli expats may return. Their votes could matter in a fragmented contest where neither main party is near a parliamentary majority and coalition negotiations will decide the next government.

The Knesset is Israel’s parliament, and it has 120 seats. A majority requires more than half of those seats, so no single governing camp can take power without sufficient parliamentary support. This matters because the election is not only about which party finishes first. It is about which combination can assemble a workable government.

The article identifies Likud, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, and the newer centrist Yashar party, led by Gadi Eisenkot, as polling neck and neck. Neither is close to winning enough seats alone. Parties are divided mainly over whether they would govern with Netanyahu, rather than simply along traditional left-right lines.

That leaves two broad camps: parties willing to join a Netanyahu-led coalition and those potentially willing to join an Eisenkot-led coalition. Neither bloc has a clear route to 61 seats. The result could therefore be coalition bargaining, uncertainty and political deadlock after voting ends.

When no political bloc wins enough Knesset seats to govern alone, parties must combine their seats and agree to support a government. Coalition-building is therefore the mechanism that converts a fragmented election result into a governing majority. The parties must decide whom they can work with and what policies they can accept.

In this election, the main dividing line is willingness to govern alongside Benjamin Netanyahu. Some parties may join a Netanyahu-led coalition, while others may support one led by Gadi Eisenkot. The article says neither camp appears to have a clear route to a parliamentary majority, even though Yashar and Likud are the leading contenders.

The immediate consequence could be prolonged bargaining and political deadlock. A coalition led by Eisenkot would span the political spectrum and include right-wing parties, limiting how far it could move on Palestinian statehood or territorial compromise. Any government would therefore depend on compromises among partners with different priorities.

The article presents the two possible governments as different in direction, though neither is fully predictable. Benjamin Netanyahu’s government has pursued changes that curb the judiciary’s oversight of government decisions and has adopted increasingly hardline policies towards Palestinians. It has also expanded Israeli military operations across the region, including in Lebanon and Iran.

Gadi Eisenkot, a former Israel Defense Forces chief of staff, leads the centrist Yashar party. His platform promises accountability for the October 7 attack, restored trust in Israel’s institutions and stronger national security. He also has a personal stake in the conflict, having lost both his son and nephew in the Hamas-Israel war.

The difference may be constrained by coalition politics. Eisenkot’s prospective coalition would span the political spectrum and include right-wing parties. The article says that could limit movement on recognising Palestinian statehood or negotiating territorial compromise. The election may therefore change leadership without producing a sweeping shift on every issue.

The election matters because it could change Israel’s direction across institutions, security and relations with Palestinians. Netanyahu’s government has pursued sweeping changes to Israel’s institutions, including efforts to curb the judiciary’s oversight of government decisions. It has also pushed increasingly hardline policies towards Palestinians and expanded military operations across the region.

A possible Eisenkot-led government would promise accountability for failures surrounding the October 7 attack, restore trust in institutions and strengthen national security. That could alter the political approach to military policy and public responsibility. However, Eisenkot’s proposed coalition would include right-wing parties, so its freedom to change policy would be limited.

The article specifically says coalition composition could restrict progress on recognising Palestinian statehood and negotiating territorial compromise. The result could therefore bring institutional and leadership changes without resolving the conflict. It may also leave Israel facing continuing regional tensions, fractured alliances and debates over democratic values and religious nationalism.

Israel uses proportional representation, meaning parliamentary seats are allocated among parties according to their share of the vote rather than awarded entirely to one winning party. The article does not explain this mechanism directly, but it shows its result: many parties divide the 120 Knesset seats, and neither major bloc is close to a majority.

Because no party or bloc may hold enough seats alone, parties negotiate to form a coalition. A larger party needs partners whose combined seats provide parliamentary support. Smaller parties can become essential if their seats help a coalition reach a majority. In return, they may seek policy commitments or influence over government decisions.

This explains why the election is organised around possible Netanyahu-led and Eisenkot-led coalitions, not only first place. It also explains why an Eisenkot government could include right-wing parties and still face limits on Palestinian statehood or territorial compromise. The final governing programme may reflect coalition partners as much as the leading party.