Israel votes for the first time since Hamas attack and decides Netanyahu's future

Israel was voting for all 120 Knesset seats, not directly for prime minister. The result could determine whether Benjamin Netanyahu can assemble the parliamentary support needed to remain in office.

Netanyahu’s Likud was seeking alliances with religious and right-wing parties. To form a government, a bloc must command at least 61 of the 120 seats. Election results therefore do not automatically name the prime minister. They determine which coalition can govern.

Polls offered conflicting projections. i24NEWS gave Likud 26 seats and Yashar 21, while the Times of Israel gave Yashar 23 and Likud 21. Neither forecast produced a majority. Ultra-Orthodox and Arab parties could therefore become decisive in negotiations. The final government might take shape only after parties agree on a coalition.

The Knesset is Israel’s Parliament, made up of 120 elected members. Voters choose parliamentary parties rather than selecting the prime minister directly. This makes the Knesset the central institution in deciding who can govern.

After the election, parties must show that they have the support of at least 61 lawmakers. A party can win the most seats yet still lack enough support to govern alone. It must then seek backing from other parties and build a coalition.

The article’s polling examples show how this works. Likud and Yashar were projected to win different numbers of seats, but neither reached 61. Ultra-Orthodox parties and representatives of Israel’s Arab population could therefore influence coalition talks. The final government might depend on agreements reached after voting ends.

The election involved about 7.3 million eligible Israeli voters. They were choosing the 120 members of the Knesset, Israel’s Parliament. The scale mattered because the contest would determine the parliamentary balance after years of war.

The key governing threshold was 61 seats. Since the Knesset has 120 members, no party or alliance can form a government without support from more than half of all lawmakers. Voters therefore shaped the government indirectly through party representation.

Early participation was unusually high. By noon, 31.5% of eligible voters had cast ballots, the highest rate recorded at that time since 1977. Polls suggested neither main bloc would reach 61 seats alone. As a result, smaller parties could help determine the next government through coalition agreements.

If neither Netanyahu’s bloc nor Gadi Eisenkot’s bloc reaches 61 seats, the election produces no ready-made governing majority. Israel’s system requires parliamentary support, so the largest bloc cannot simply govern by itself.

The mechanism is coalition bargaining. A leading party must negotiate with other elected parties and secure enough lawmakers to cross the 61-seat threshold. Those partners may demand influence over policy, including security, military service, or other campaign priorities. The identity of coalition partners can therefore shape the government’s agenda.

The article identifies ultra-Orthodox parties and representatives of the Arab population as possible kingmakers. Polls gave conflicting estimates for Likud and Yashar, but neither side was projected to reach 61 seats. The first projections would appear after polls closed, yet the next government could remain uncertain until later agreements were completed.

Netanyahu and Eisenkot differ over both the war’s political meaning and Israel’s response to its failures. Netanyahu presents military operations against Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran as evidence of his effort to protect Israel. Eisenkot challenges that record and calls for accountability.

Eisenkot, a former military chief who served in Netanyahu’s war cabinet, left it in 2024 after disagreements over the conflict’s conduct. He supports a state commission to investigate the security failures that preceded the 2023 attacks. Netanyahu’s allied religious parties support special rules for ultra-Orthodox seminary students.

Eisenkot instead proposes expanding military recruitment. The dispute links wartime security to compulsory service and equality of obligations. It could affect coalition negotiations after the vote, especially if religious parties become necessary partners. The broader election also covered living costs and national security.

Israel’s election was the first since Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023. Those attacks began a series of conflicts in the Middle East and placed security at the center of the political debate. Voters were choosing Parliament after an extended period of war.

The country had faced wars in Gaza and Lebanon, as well as conflict against Iran. Netanyahu used operations against Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran to present himself as a leader focused on Israel’s security. Eisenkot, a former army chief, disputed aspects of the war’s conduct and demanded an investigation into earlier security failures.

The conflict also shaped debate over compulsory military service. Religious allies of Netanyahu defended special rules for ultra-Orthodox seminary students, while Eisenkot favored broader recruitment. Cost of living remained another major issue. The election therefore combined wartime leadership, accountability, military obligations, and everyday economic pressure.

A parliamentary coalition system is one in which voters elect lawmakers and parties, then the governing side is formed from those parliamentary numbers. The prime minister depends on the legislature’s support rather than receiving a separate direct mandate from voters.

In Israel, the Knesset has 120 members, and a government needs at least 61 supporters. If the largest party falls short, it negotiates with smaller parties. Those partners can join the governing coalition in exchange for influence over policies or priorities. Their votes can determine who governs.

The article identifies religious and ultra-Orthodox parties, along with representatives of Israel’s Arab population, as potentially important. Polls did not give either main bloc a majority. Therefore, smaller parties could decide whether Netanyahu, Eisenkot’s camp, or another negotiated combination obtains enough support to form the next government.