Israel heads to polls for pivotal election defined by security and democracy

Israelis are choosing a Knesset that will determine who can form the next government. The contest is led by incumbent Benjamin Netanyahu and former military chief Gadi Eisenkot. Polling described them as nearly tied.

Netanyahu leads a bloc built around his current coalition’s far-right and ultra-Orthodox parties. Eisenkot leads Yashar and the wider change bloc. It includes former prime minister Naftali Bennett, Avigdor Lieberman, and left-leaning former general Yair Golan.

The blocs differ sharply on politics, but neither is projected to win 61 seats. The change bloc’s common purpose is ousting Netanyahu, while Netanyahu needs another alliance with his current partners. Arab parties could also influence the result, although nearly all leading Jewish parties reject working with them.

Israel’s Knesset has 120 seats, so a government needs at least 61 to hold a majority. That threshold matters because a prime minister cannot rely only on being the leading individual candidate or party. The winning side must assemble enough partners to govern.

This election looks especially difficult because polling puts Netanyahu’s and Eisenkot’s blocs below the majority line. Israel’s proportional representation system gives multiple parties a route into the Knesset. Their seats then need to be combined into a governing coalition.

The parties are divided by ideology and political red lines. Eisenkot’s bloc includes right-wing security hawks and a left-leaning former general. Netanyahu relies on far-right and ultra-Orthodox parties. Arab parties could hold pivotal seats, but most leading Jewish parties rule out cooperating with them.

If neither Netanyahu’s bloc nor the opposition bloc reaches 61 seats, the election will not immediately produce a government. The central task will shift from campaigning to coalition negotiations. Parties must find partners willing to support a common government.

Israel’s proportional representation system makes this outcome familiar. Governments have always been coalitions, and races to power have produced unexpected alliances. In this contest, the ideological gaps are especially wide, including disagreements over security, religion, democracy, and relations with Arab parties.

The article says weeks or months of political wrangling may follow. Netanyahu would likely need his far-right and ultra-Orthodox partners again. The change bloc would need to keep together parties ranging from right-wing security leaders to the left-leaning Yair Golan. Arab parties might become kingmakers, though most leading Jewish parties reject cooperation with them.

Proportional representation is an electoral system in which parties receive legislative seats broadly according to their support in the vote. It gives smaller parties a better chance of entering parliament. The result is a legislature with several competing parties instead of one dominant party.

Israel’s Knesset has 120 seats, and a government needs 61. A party or bloc rarely wins that many alone. Parties therefore negotiate after elections, combining their seats and agreeing on a governing program, leadership, and priorities.

The current election shows why the system can be complicated. Netanyahu’s bloc relies on far-right and ultra-Orthodox parties. Eisenkot’s change bloc includes leaders with different ideologies who share opposition to Netanyahu. Arab parties may also hold enough seats to matter, but most leading Jewish parties have ruled out working with them. This creates bargaining and unexpected alliances.

Security dominates the campaign because the 7 October Hamas-led attacks represented an unprecedented failure that occurred under Netanyahu’s government. Nearly 1,200 people were killed, and 251 were taken back to Gaza as hostages. The scale of the attack has made responsibility and accountability central election issues.

Opposition parties want an independent commission of inquiry. They say it should examine what went wrong, but Netanyahu has long resisted it, arguing that it would be biased against him. Their criticism directly attacks his long-standing reputation as “Mr Security.”

Netanyahu answers by pointing to what he calls strategic victories in Israel’s wars across the Middle East and his close relationship with US President Donald Trump. The campaign also featured warnings about Iran and disputed reports of proposed military action. The security debate will shape coalition politics after voting, especially as the Gaza war continues.

Coalition arithmetic may matter as much as the headline vote. Arab citizens make up about one-fifth of Israel’s population, and two Arab party blocs are contesting the election. Their seats could become decisive if neither major bloc reaches 61.

Netanyahu’s route depends on the far-right and ultra-Orthodox parties in his current coalition. The ultra-Orthodox issue is especially sensitive because the government has not enforced a Supreme Court ruling requiring full-time religious students to be conscripted. That stance can preserve support among religious partners while angering others.

Political red lines narrow the possible combinations. Nearly all leading Jewish parties have ruled out working with Arab parties. Eisenkot’s change bloc also contains parties with major ideological differences. Its shared goal is removing Netanyahu, but that common aim may not be enough unless the parties agree on a workable coalition.

Several institutions and long-running conflicts sit beneath the election. Netanyahu faces an ongoing corruption trial and continues to pursue controversial judicial reforms. Those plans previously triggered mass protests. The opposition presents them as threats to democracy, while Netanyahu denies the corruption charges.

Military service is another fault line. The government has failed to enforce a Supreme Court ruling requiring ultra-Orthodox men in full-time religious study to be conscripted. That is divisive while thousands of other Israelis have been drafted for recent wars. The settlement issue also divides opinion: Eisenkot broadly supports settlements but wants action against extremist settlers.

On Gaza, Eisenkot broadly agrees with Netanyahu and promises to end Hamas rule within 18 months. He also supports Palestinian autonomy or a “state-minus” under Israeli security control. The traditional two-state solution has nearly disappeared from mainstream Israeli politics.