From Gaza to Ramallah, Palestinians see little hope in Israeli vote changing their lives

A clear majority means holding enough Knesset seats to pass laws and form a government with dependable support. Netanyahu’s camp led the early count, but its parties had not secured that threshold on their own. The result therefore showed an advantage, not a guaranteed government.

The article reports that 85 per cent of ballots had been counted. Netanyahu’s camp was ahead, but no side had a clear majority. That leaves several options: renew an alliance with far-right parties, create a broader coalition, or fail to form a government and enter another period of deadlock.

The uncertainty matters because coalition partners can shape policy. Itamar Ben Gvir has signalled that he would seek the defence portfolio and push for expelling Gaza’s population if the current coalition survives. A different coalition could ease pressure on the Palestinian Authority and take a more flexible approach to aid and a Gaza ceasefire, though researchers expect no transformation.

Israel’s Knesset has 120 seats, so a governing majority requires more than half: 61 seats. This is a basic parliamentary threshold. It does not mean one party must win 61 seats, because several parties can combine in a coalition.

The election result described in the article illustrates why the number matters. Netanyahu’s camp led after 85 per cent of ballots were counted, but it did not have a clear majority. Its parties therefore needed support from partners, including possible far-right allies, to form a government and pass legislation.

That coalition arithmetic can affect Palestinians. A government dependent on far-right parties may continue settlement expansion or tolerate settler violence. A broader or centrist-led coalition might ease pressure on the Palestinian Authority and handle aid or a Gaza ceasefire more flexibly. However, the article warns that even a different coalition would not necessarily transform policy.

Israel’s governing coalition matters because its partners influence decisions about Gaza and the West Bank. The article describes years of right-wing and far-right rule alongside the Gaza war and rising settler violence. Coalition bargaining can therefore affect military policy, aid, relations with the Palestinian Authority, and the treatment of settlements.

For example, far-right minister Itamar Ben Gvir has said he would seek the defence portfolio and push for expelling Gaza’s population. A government led by Gadi Eisenkot could reduce the far right’s influence, ease pressure on the Palestinian Authority, and take a more flexible approach to aid and a Gaza ceasefire.

The likely effects remain limited. Researcher Beth Oppenheim expects no transformative change, especially on Palestinian statehood or the peace process. A renewed Netanyahu coalition would likely mean more settlement expansion and impunity for settler violence. Even an Eisenkot-led coalition could face pressure to prove it was tough on Palestinian issues.

The article presents two different policy directions. A renewed Netanyahu alliance with far-right partners would likely continue settlement expansion and impunity for settler violence. It could also produce harsher Gaza policies, especially if Itamar Ben Gvir gained the defence portfolio and pursued the expulsion of Gaza’s population.

Under Gadi Eisenkot, a former army chief, the far right might have less influence. Researcher Beth Oppenheim says such a government could ease pressure on the Palestinian Authority. It might also adopt a more flexible position on humanitarian aid and a ceasefire in Gaza. These are possible changes, not guarantees.

The differences would still have limits. Eisenkot served in Israel’s wartime cabinet during the Gaza offensive, and analysts warn that a fragile coalition could take a harder line to prove its strength. Oppenheim expects no major change on Palestinian statehood or the peace process. Palestinians therefore face uncertainty under either government.

A change in government does not automatically change the issues that dominate political debate. The article says Palestinian statehood and the peace process have largely disappeared from Israel’s political discussion since Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack. That leaves little political momentum for a major diplomatic breakthrough.

Beth Oppenheim expects an Eisenkot-led government to reduce far-right influence, ease pressure on the Palestinian Authority, and act more flexibly on Gaza aid and a ceasefire. Yet she describes this as “nothing transformative.” A Netanyahu coalition with far-right partners would likely continue settlement expansion and impunity for settler violence.

The wider political structure also limits change. Eisenkot served in the wartime cabinet, while a fragile coalition could face constant attacks from Netanyahu and the right. It might respond by taking a tougher line on Palestinians. Thus, a new government could alter management of the conflict without reviving negotiations or changing the long-term debate over Palestinian statehood.

Losing political power could make far-right allies and settlers more confrontational. Yousef Munayyer warns that settlers might act out against a new government in the West Bank. Such violence could raise pressure on an already fragile coalition and make the Palestinian situation worse even after Netanyahu’s defeat.

The mechanism is political and territorial. A new coalition could be attacked by Netanyahu and the right for appearing weak. It might then take a harder line on Palestinian issues to prove its strength. At the same time, settlers live in places surrounding Palestinian communities, while settlers are armed and Palestinians are overwhelmingly not.

Munayyer says most settler violence is structural, not simply a product of which government is in charge. That means a change in leadership may not stop it. If far-right supporters resist the new government and existing conditions continue, West Bank violence could rise rather than decline in the short term.

Military occupation is the control of territory and its population by a foreign military power. Israeli settlements are communities established by Israelis in the occupied West Bank. Settler violence refers to attacks, threats, or coercion by settlers against Palestinians. These definitions use established historical and political meanings; the article focuses on their effects rather than explaining the legal terms.

The article says settlers live in places surrounding Palestinian communities. Settlers are armed, while Palestinians are overwhelmingly not. That creates daily vulnerability. Munayyer calls most settler violence structural, meaning it is built into the surrounding conditions and is not only a reaction to which government holds office.

These realities also shape political power. A Netanyahu coalition would likely bring settlement expansion and impunity for settler violence. If the far right loses power, settlers could act against a new government. Palestinians therefore may face continued insecurity even when Israel’s governing coalition changes.