As a divided Israel prepares to go to the polls, can Netanyahu pull off his greatest political trick yet?

Benjamin Netanyahu dominates because his long career has shaped Israel’s political culture. He first became prime minister three decades ago and has held the office for 19 of the past 30 years. The election is therefore framed less as a normal contest among parties than as a choice between Netanyahu and his opponents.

Gadi Eisenkot’s campaign shows this clearly. His promises of honesty, responsibility, term limits, and leading by example are presented as contrasts with Netanyahu. On the right, Yishai Fleisher says Netanyahu is like a shopping trolley that must be pulled right. Even parties opposed to Netanyahu are judged by whether they can replace him.

Netanyahu also sets the campaign’s central argument. His posters suggest voters must choose between the right and “Palestine,” portraying opponents alongside Arab party leaders. The anti-Netanyahu bloc is forecast to do better, but not win a majority. That keeps Netanyahu central, because coalition negotiations may still determine whether he returns to power.

Gadi Eisenkot is a former general and former chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces. He entered politics four years ago and leads the opposition challenge through Yashar. His campaign presents him as a direct, responsible alternative to Netanyahu. Supporters value his lack of theatrical charisma, calling it evidence that he will do the work rather than merely talk.

Eisenkot calls for a country without lies, responsibility, leading by example, and US-style term limits. His party’s name, Yashar, means straight or direct. The article also identifies Naftali Bennett, a former prime minister, and Avigdor Lieberman, who was born in Moldova. Both belong naturally to the nationalist right and once worked closely with Netanyahu.

Yet Bennett and Lieberman later fell out spectacularly with him and joined the anti-Netanyahu camp. Their presence shows that opposition is not simply left versus right. It is a broad alliance offering voters a change of leadership, cleaner conduct, and a government able to replace Netanyahu.

The Knesset is Israel’s national parliament. The article refers to its 120 seats and to parties competing for representation there. Its importance is that control of the Knesset determines whether a prime minister can sustain a government and pass legislation.

Israel uses proportional representation. Voters primarily choose party lists rather than a single nationwide presidential candidate. Seats are then distributed among parties according to their vote shares, subject to the electoral rules. Because several parties usually win seats, one party commonly needs partners. A coalition is formed when parties agree to support a governing program and provide enough parliamentary backing.

The article describes two broad camps: a Netanyahu bloc and an anti-Netanyahu bloc. It says the anti-Netanyahu camp is forecast to do better, but fall short of an overall majority. That means the election may not produce a government immediately. Negotiations among parties, including Arab-led parties, can decide who reaches power and whether another election follows.

A majority in a 120-seat Knesset requires 61 seats. That number matters because a government needs support from more than half the parliament to command a stable legislative base. The article does not give exact seat forecasts, but it says the anti-Netanyahu bloc is expected to do better than the Netanyahu bloc while still falling short of an overall majority.

The closeness comes from the election’s two large political camps. One is built around Netanyahu. The other combines parties united mainly by opposition to him. That anti-Netanyahu group includes figures from different parts of the political spectrum, including Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Lieberman, whose natural home is the nationalist right. Their shared opposition does not automatically create 61 seats.

As a result, the election may produce a lead without producing control. Netanyahu remains powerful because he may be able to assemble partners, while his opponents may need support from Arab-led parties. The final government therefore depends on bargaining after votes are counted, not simply on which bloc finishes first.

When no bloc wins a majority, the election produces no automatic government. The parties must negotiate. A leader can become prime minister only by gathering enough parliamentary support from other parties, usually through a coalition agreement. The article does not describe the formal appointment process, but it clearly presents coalition bargaining as decisive.

The central obstacle is political distance. The anti-Netanyahu bloc includes parties from the nationalist right, while Netanyahu’s opponents may also need Arab-led parties. Historically, most Arab parties have refused to join Israeli governments, and Jewish-led governments have not invited them. Those old boundaries make negotiations difficult, even when the numbers make cooperation attractive.

If talks succeed, a coalition can govern despite no bloc winning alone. If they fail, the country can remain without a durable governing majority and may need another election. That possibility helps explain Netanyahu’s continuing influence: his opponents must not merely defeat him electorally. They must also agree on a workable alternative government.

Arab-led parties matter because the anti-Netanyahu bloc is forecast to finish ahead but below the 61 seats needed for a majority. If Jewish Israeli parties cannot reach that number alone, support from parties representing Palestinian citizens of Israel could become decisive. Their seats might provide the parliamentary backing needed to form a government.

The article says those parties represent about a fifth of Israel’s population. It also says most have historically refused to join Israeli governments and have not been invited. Netanyahu has used that possibility against his opponents. His campaign places Arab party leaders beside other opposition figures, warning voters that an anti-Netanyahu vote could bring “the Arabs” into government.

That makes Arab parties both politically valuable and politically controversial. Their participation could break the deadlock, but it might alienate partners in the anti-Netanyahu camp, especially parties on the nationalist right. The article presents this question as central to the closing weeks: whether opposition parties will make some kind of parliamentary deal with them.

Israel’s proportional-representation system means parliamentary seats are distributed among parties according to their support. The article does not explain the system’s mechanics, but it shows its political effect: several blocs and parties compete, and a government may need agreements across party lines. No single candidate is simply elected prime minister by a nationwide majority.

The article describes an anti-Netanyahu camp containing figures from different ideological backgrounds. Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Lieberman are associated with the nationalist right, yet oppose Netanyahu. The camp may still fall short of a majority, so it must bargain with other parties, possibly Arab-led ones. This fragmented structure also makes repeated elections possible when parties cannot form a governing coalition.

Netanyahu benefits from this environment because longevity gives him a strong political identity and a dependable bloc. He has been prime minister for 19 of the past 30 years and sets the campaign’s agenda. Opponents must unite around more than removing him. They must also negotiate a coalition capable of governing.