Israeli election 'stolen' by Arab parties, says Likud

Likud claimed that Arab parties had unlawfully influenced Israel’s election. Its statement accused them of supporting terrorism and the destruction of the Jewish state. It listed serious corruption, threats, violence, falsehoods, and prohibited software designed to encourage voters to vote. These were allegations by Likud, not established findings in the article.

The party said it was submitting testimonies and evidence to the authorities. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had made a similar accusation while voting was still under way. He focused especially on Ra’am and referred to reports that individuals had been arrested with envelopes of cash.

The allegations mattered because Arab parties were projected to hold enough seats to influence government formation. The article does not describe the contents of the submitted evidence or report a final official finding. It records Likud’s claims and its stated decision to seek investigation by the authorities.

The Knesset is Israel’s parliament. It has 120 seats, and parties or blocs need enough support there to pass legislation and survive confidence votes. In practice, a government normally needs support from at least 61 members, an outright majority of the chamber. That makes seat totals more important than simply finishing first.

The projected figures showed Netanyahu’s bloc with 53 seats and Eisenkot’s opposition with 48. Neither reached 61. Arab parties were projected to win 19 seats, so their support could help another bloc cross the majority threshold. Support might come through a formal coalition or through outside backing on confidence votes.

The Knesset therefore determines who can govern by measuring parliamentary support. The article describes Arab parties as potential kingmakers because Eisenkot had little realistic path to power without broad Arab backing. It also notes that many Jewish political leaders rejected such cooperation, making the arithmetic politically difficult.

The projection gave Netanyahu’s right-wing, far-right, and ultra-Orthodox bloc 53 seats. Eisenkot’s opposition bloc had 48, while parties representing Arab Israelis had 19. These figures filled the 120-seat Knesset, but neither main bloc reached the 61 seats generally needed to govern.

The key mechanism was parliamentary arithmetic. Eisenkot’s 48 seats needed 13 more for a majority. The Arab parties’ 19 seats were therefore large enough, in theory, to provide that support. They did not have to control the largest bloc to influence who became prime minister. Their votes could decide confidence motions or help form a coalition.

The numbers did not guarantee an Eisenkot government. The Joint List said it would not join because of support for Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and the occupation of southern Lebanon, though it might support from outside. Ra’am said it would join. Many Jewish political leaders rejected broad Arab backing.

Outside support means a party helps a government survive without formally joining its coalition. In a parliamentary system, this can involve voting for a government in confidence motions or agreeing not to bring it down. The supporting party can remain formally separate while still supplying crucial votes.

The article gives the Joint List as the clearest example. Yousef Jabareen said it could not join an Eisenkot-led government because of its support for the Gaza campaign and the occupation of southern Lebanon. However, he left open the possibility of propping up a minority government from outside. He said the party had demands concerning community rights, funding, opportunities, equality, crime, and peace talks.

This arrangement would be fragile. The government would have to negotiate support vote by vote or on agreed conditions. The article does not say that such a deal was completed. It presents outside backing as a possible route for Eisenkot’s bloc, which otherwise lacked a realistic path to power.

A caretaker government is an existing government that remains in office temporarily after an election or during coalition talks. It keeps public administration running while parties try to form a new government. It does not necessarily mean the prime minister has lost every executive power, but its political authority is weaker because voters have not produced a new governing coalition.

Gadi Eisenkot called Netanyahu a caretaker prime minister lacking a mandate. He also told the military to serve the state rather than the premier. Israel’s defence minister, Israel Katz, condemned that appeal as anti-democratic and said officials should follow the prime minister and relevant security authorities.

The article specifically links the dispute to possible new strikes on Iran. It does not set out Israel’s precise legal rules for caretaker governments. Generally, such a government handles continuing business, while major political or security decisions can become contested. Coalition negotiations, or another election if no coalition emerges, would determine what happens next.

One possibility was that Netanyahu’s 53-seat bloc would find additional support and remain in power. Another was an Eisenkot-led government, with Ra’am formally joining; Mansour Abbas said Ra’am would join and that senior opposition figures had discussed a deal. A third option was an Eisenkot minority government, with the Joint List supporting it from outside.

The numbers explain the need for deals. Neither main bloc reached 61 seats, so additional parties were essential. But the potential partners disagreed over major issues. The Joint List opposed joining because Eisenkot’s bloc supported Israel’s military campaign in Gaza and the occupation of southern Lebanon. It also wanted peace talks on a Palestinian state.

Security disagreements added another obstacle. Netanyahu threatened renewed war on Iran, while Eisenkot warned against using security for political needs. The article says counting was still continuing, so the projections could change. Any government would need agreements strong enough to survive parliamentary confidence votes.

In a proportional electoral system, parties receive parliamentary seats broadly in line with their share of the vote rather than one winner taking every seat. Israel’s 120-seat Knesset can therefore contain many parties. A government must usually assemble a coalition that reaches a majority, rather than governing alone after winning the most votes.

The article’s projection shows the mechanism clearly. Netanyahu’s bloc had 53 seats and Eisenkot’s had 48, both below a 61-seat majority. Arab parties had 19 seats. Their votes could help an opposition government pass the confidence threshold, either through Ra’am joining formally or through Joint List support from outside.

This system gives minority parties influence beyond their size. They can negotiate protections, funding, equality measures, or other priorities in exchange for support. It also makes governments vulnerable to disagreements among partners. The article shows that Arab parties’ positions on Gaza, Lebanon, Iran, and Palestinian statehood could determine whether any coalition becomes viable.