A bitter night in Israel for all who craved a fresh start. Netanyahu survives for now – and we are more divided than ever | Dahlia Scheindlin

Israel’s election produced no clear governing winner. Exit polls first showed Netanyahu’s current coalition taking only 50 of 120 Knesset seats, while opposition parties held 70. That result encouraged opponents who wanted to replace him, but neither broad camp was near the 61 seats needed for a majority.

The real-vote count then changed the picture. Within hours, Netanyahu’s bloc moved significantly ahead of four opposition Zionist parties. Arab parties still performed strongly, but below the first projections. Three of those four Zionist parties preferred not to include Arab parties in coalition talks, reducing the opposition’s practical strength.

Netanyahu therefore might remain prime minister even if opposition parties together received more votes. The key issue is whether his bloc can reach 61 seats with partners. Negotiations could produce another Netanyahu government, a minority government, or a stalemate.

The Knesset is Israel’s parliament, made up of 120 seats. Elections divide those seats among political parties, creating several groups rather than automatically producing one governing party. This matters because governing power depends on parliamentary support, not simply on which party finishes first.

A government needs support from at least 61 of the 120 members. Parties can combine after the election to form a coalition. For example, Netanyahu’s Likud party led the main challenger’s Yashar party, but the larger question was whether Netanyahu’s wider bloc could gather enough allied parties to pass the majority threshold.

The election left that outcome uncertain. The opposition’s parties together could outnumber Netanyahu’s bloc in votes or seats, yet still fail to cooperate. Arab parties might hold decisive seats, but several Zionist opposition parties preferred excluding them. Coalition negotiations therefore determine who governs.

Israel’s Knesset has 120 seats, so a governing majority requires 61. That threshold is crucial because no single political community necessarily wins enough seats alone. Parties must build a coalition that can command more than half the chamber.

The first exit polls showed a dramatic gap from the threshold. Netanyahu’s current coalition was projected to win 50 seats, while opposition parties were projected to win 70. Yet those 70 seats were spread across different parties, and neither broad grouping was close to forming a government by itself. Later, the real count pulled Netanyahu’s bloc significantly ahead of four opposition Zionist parties.

The article does not establish that any group had reached 61 seats. It says the rightwing parties may hold about 74 seats overall, but negotiations still decide the governing coalition. The final result could be another Netanyahu government, a minority government, or stalemate.

When no bloc wins 61 seats alone, parties negotiate to build a coalition. They trade political support and try to combine enough seats to command a majority in the Knesset. The process matters because Israel’s election produced several competing camps rather than one decisive winner.

The article gives a clear example. Netanyahu’s bloc initially looked weak, then moved ahead during the real count. Arab parties also won substantial support, but three of the four opposition Zionist parties preferred to exclude them from coalition-building. That choice could prevent the wider opposition from turning its combined strength into a government.

The next weeks were expected to bring dizzying negotiations. The possible outcomes included another coalition led by Netanyahu, a minority government, or a stalemate. Even if opposition parties together held more seats or votes, disagreements over ideology and coalition partners could stop them from governing.

Arab-Palestinian citizens’ unusually high participation gave their parties unusual leverage. They make up about one-fifth of Israel’s population, and their turnout had previously lagged behind Jewish voters. This time, more than 75% voted, driven by the urgency of removing a government they viewed as ultra-nationalist and anti-Arab.

The first exit polls projected Arab parties to win 17 or 18 of the 120 seats. Since neither the Netanyahu bloc nor the opposition Zionist parties was close to 61 seats, Arab lawmakers could provide the missing support needed for a coalition. That made them potential kingmakers in negotiations.

Their influence remained uncertain because three of the four opposition Zionist parties preferred to exclude them from coalition-building. The final count also reduced their initial projected strength. Arab citizens therefore risked a severe disappointment: their highest-ever participation might not remove the government they opposed.

Military service was divisive because the election took place during Israel’s longest and bloodiest war. Netanyahu’s government had shielded Israel’s ultra-Orthodox Jews from serving. Opponents saw that exemption as especially consequential while many other Israelis were serving in the military during the conflict.

The issue appeared directly in opposition speeches. Naftali Bennett said an “alliance of those who served” had won. He contrasted those voters with ultra-Orthodox Jews protected from service by the outgoing government. The wording made military participation a test of shared responsibility and a sharp dividing line between political camps.

The dispute also affected coalition politics. Ultra-Orthodox parties were among Netanyahu’s theocratic allies, so protecting their position helped hold his coalition together. Many opposition voters feared another extremist, anti-democratic, pro-war government. The service question therefore linked wartime sacrifice, religious influence, and the struggle over Israel’s next government.