What you need to know about the most consequential election in Israel’s history

This election is especially consequential because it is Israel’s first since the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks, when about 1,200 people were killed, most of them civilians. Since then, Israel has fought in Gaza, faced two inconclusive wars with Iran, and intensified its campaign in the occupied West Bank. The government has also challenged democratic institutions, including the supreme court.

The attack changed the election’s central question. Opponents say Netanyahu’s government failed to protect the country and want a state commission of inquiry. They also point to the cost of multiple wars, religious extremism, military-service exemptions, and rising international isolation. Netanyahu instead blames the security establishment and presents himself as the leader best able to keep Israel safe.

The result could determine whether Israel continues its current far-right coalition’s policies or moves toward a different security and political direction. It may also affect the future of democratic institutions, relations with Palestinians, and Netanyahu’s personal legal position.

Benjamin Netanyahu is Israel’s prime minister and its dominant political figure, having led the country for 19 of the last 30 years. He heads a far-right coalition and seeks another mandate with Donald Trump’s endorsement. His main rival, Gadi Eisenkot, is a former head of the Israeli military and a relative political newcomer. Eisenkot’s son and two nephews were killed fighting in Gaza in 2024.

Their contest represents two contrasting political styles. Netanyahu relies on experience, international contacts, and a claim that only he can protect Israel. Eisenkot lacks Netanyahu’s charisma but has made that a virtue, presenting himself as an honest alternative through his party, Yashar, meaning “Honesty”.

The election also affects Netanyahu’s legal future. He is on trial for corruption. If he loses power, the article says, his risk of jail time may increase. That makes the vote both a national decision about security and policy and a personal struggle over Netanyahu’s survival in politics.

The Knesset is Israel’s national parliament. It has 120 seats, and lawmakers are elected through proportional representation. This system is designed to reflect parties’ overall vote shares rather than award nearly all seats to one national winner. Because no single party has ever won 61 seats, every Israeli government has depended on coalitions.

In practice, voters choose party lists. Parties receive seats broadly according to their share of the national vote, but they must first clear the 3.25% threshold. Seats are then distributed among qualifying parties. The exact allocation can be affected by how votes are translated into whole parliamentary seats, so small differences matter.

After voting, the president invites the party with the largest number of seats to try forming a governing coalition. That party must find partners who together can command at least 61 seats, or sometimes rely on outside support. The system therefore turns election results into negotiations rather than a simple winner-takes-all outcome.

The Knesset has 120 seats, so a governing majority requires at least 61. Israel’s proportional system distributes seats among parties that qualify, rather than giving all power to the largest party. The electoral threshold is 3.25% of the overall vote. Parties below it receive no Knesset seats.

This threshold creates a sharp effect for small parties. A party polling just above 3.25% can enter parliament and bring several seats into coalition negotiations. If it falls just below the line, those votes do not produce seats. The remaining parties then divide the available seats differently, changing the balance between blocs.

The article says two small parties are polling around the threshold, so the final result may depend on them. Their success could help Netanyahu’s coalition retain a path to 61 seats, or strengthen an opposing bloc. Even when the overall vote changes little, a few seats can decide who forms the government.

A coalition losing its majority would mean Netanyahu’s partners no longer clearly control at least 61 Knesset seats. That could endanger his government and give rival parties an opportunity to form a different coalition. However, the election does not directly choose a prime minister by majority vote. The president first invites the party with the largest number of seats to negotiate.

The winner must assemble partners with compatible policies. The article describes divided opposition seats, including Jewish Israeli parties and parties representing Palestinian citizens. It also says two small parties are near the 3.25% threshold. Their results could change the seat totals and make coalition arithmetic uncertain.

A new government may therefore take time. Parties must bargain over security, military-service exemptions, settlements, democratic institutions, and other issues. Palestinian politicians might support a minority government without joining it, but that arrangement could remain fragile. Full results themselves may take longer because the threshold contests are so important.

Polls show a clear anti-Netanyahu majority, but that does not necessarily create a governing bloc. Opposition seats are split between Jewish Israeli parties led by Eisenkot’s Yashar and parties representing Palestinian citizens of Israel. Together they might outnumber Netanyahu’s coalition, yet they do not automatically share a government or common program.

The key mechanism is coalition formation. A government needs support from at least 61 Knesset members. The article says Jewish Israeli parties are unlikely to win a majority alone and have mostly ruled out forming a coalition with Palestinian parties. That political refusal can turn a numerical majority into a governing dead end.

Palestinian politicians have indicated they might support a minority government of Jewish Israeli parties to remove Netanyahu’s far-right coalition. Such support could help pass votes without formal coalition membership, but it may be unstable. The result could be prolonged negotiations, another coalition arrangement, or difficulty governing even after Netanyahu’s bloc loses seats.

Israeli citizens are allowed to vote in Knesset elections, including Israeli settlers living in West Bank settlements. Most Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank are not Israeli citizens, so they generally cannot vote in Israel’s national elections. This distinction is central to understanding why the same territory contains people with different political rights.

The system developed after Israel occupied the West Bank in 1967. Israel extended its own electoral system to its citizens and settlers, while most Palestinians there remained outside Israeli citizenship and its national electorate. Palestinians have had separate political arrangements rather than representation in the Knesset. There are specific legal and residency complexities, but the broad division is clear.

As a result, Israeli parties can campaign for settlers’ votes in the West Bank, while most Palestinians living nearby cannot help choose the Israeli government that exercises power over the territory. This unequal structure shapes debates about occupation, settlements, democracy, and the election’s wider consequences. This historical explanation uses established background beyond the supplied article.