After losing his majority, Netanyahu tries to delegitimize election results

Delegitimizing election results means making voters, politicians, or the public doubt that the announced outcome is genuine and lawful. It is different from proving specific wrongdoing through an official investigation. The concern here is that claims of fraud could make the election appear untrustworthy, even though the Israeli police said there was no evidence supporting Likud’s claim that the election was “stolen.”

Netanyahu and Likud focused attention on unusually high turnout in Arab communities. Likud later cited the arrest of three Arab Ra’am activists suspected of paying a small number of voters in one city. The article says this evidence involved a limited case, not proof that the wider Arab vote was fraudulent.

The dispute matters because the opposition won 67 seats, while Netanyahu’s coalition won 53. Eisenkot accused Netanyahu of trying to delay certification and manufacture a false narrative. If certification were blocked, the new Knesset could not be sworn in on schedule.

Likud claimed that Arab parties used bribes and fraud to steal the election. The party pointed to arrests involving three activists from the Arab Ra’am party. They were suspected of paying a small number of voters in one Arab city. Likud treated that allegation as support for a much wider claim about the election’s legitimacy.

The article draws a clear line between the limited allegation and the party’s sweeping accusation. Israeli police said there was no evidence supporting Likud’s claim that the elections were “stolen.” Shin Bet also said its investigation was narrowly focused and did not cast doubt on the Arab minority’s vote or legal right to participate.

The evidence available in the article therefore supports investigating possible individual wrongdoing, not rejecting the entire result. The broader claims could still influence public opinion and cooperation between opposition parties and Arab parties. The election results were expected to be certified the following week.

The final count gave the opposition 67 seats and Netanyahu’s coalition 53. That is a 14-seat difference between the two blocs. The article also says Netanyahu’s far-right coalition lost 11 seats in the election, which explains why its previous parliamentary position weakened.

The numbers matter because parliamentary power depends on holding enough seats to support a government and control key votes. The opposition’s total was large enough to threaten Netanyahu’s majority. Arab voters participated in historic numbers, and their two parties won 19 seats. Those seats became especially important to the opposition’s plans.

The result was not yet the end of the political process. The vote count ended Thursday, but certification was expected the following week. The Knesset was expected to be sworn in several days after that. The opposition planned to replace the speaker and begin passing laws, while Netanyahu and Likud challenged the result’s legitimacy.

Election certification is the step that formally confirms the reported result. If it did not happen, the new Knesset could not be sworn in as scheduled. That would delay the parliamentary transition and prevent the chamber produced by the election from beginning its work. The article says this would leave Netanyahu facing a blocked change in parliamentary power.

The practical stakes are immediate. The opposition won 67 seats, compared with 53 for Netanyahu’s coalition. It planned to replace the current Knesset speaker and start passing laws after the new parliament was sworn in. Blocking that sequence would stop those actions from proceeding on schedule.

Eisenkot said Netanyahu was trying to delay publication of the results and manufacture a false narrative that delegitimized the new Knesset. Netanyahu and Likud called the foreign-interference allegation an “earthquake” and again said the election was stolen. Certification was expected the following week, followed by swearing-in several days later.

The Central Elections Committee is the body involved in managing and certifying Israel’s election results. Its chair is a Supreme Court judge. In this dispute, the chair asked Shin Bet’s director to investigate suspicions that foreign countries interfered in the election and to report conclusions within a week.

Shin Bet is Israel’s domestic security agency. Its role here was to assess intelligence about possible foreign funding and election interference. The agency director briefed the committee chair, Netanyahu, and later opposition figures. The allegation was that money from Qatar may have helped increase turnout for one Arab party. The article says Shin Bet had intelligence weeks before voting.

Shin Bet stated that the investigation was focused and narrow. It said the inquiry did not cast doubt on the Arab minority’s vote and should not be used against an entire community. The timing of the briefings became politically sensitive because Netanyahu was informed before Eisenkot, and Eisenkot learned more only after the letter leaked.

Winning 67 seats gives the opposition a parliamentary majority, but that bloc is made up of several parties. To form and sustain a government, those parties must agree to cooperate rather than merely share an election result. The Arab parties are central because their two parties won 19 seats, enough to determine whether a governing alliance can hold together.

Using the article’s figures, the non-Arab portion of the opposition would have 48 seats if all 19 Arab-party seats are included in the 67. That is below the 61-seat majority needed in Israel’s 120-seat Knesset. The opposition therefore needs Arab-party cooperation, whether through a coalition arrangement or parliamentary support. This majority threshold is established parliamentary context, not stated directly in the article.

Likud urged no Zionist party to cooperate with the Arab parties. The opposition, however, planned to work with them to replace the Knesset speaker and establish a government. Netanyahu’s fraud claims appear designed to make that cooperation politically harder.

In a parliamentary democracy, voters first choose legislators. Officials then count and certify the results, establishing which seats are legally valid. The new parliament is sworn in, and parties negotiate a coalition that can command majority support. That coalition forms the government, while the previous governing bloc loses power through the parliamentary process.

This case shows why each step matters. The opposition won 67 seats, while Netanyahu’s coalition won 53. Arab parties won 19 seats between them, making their cooperation important to forming a government. The opposition planned to replace the Knesset speaker and pass laws after the new parliament was sworn in. Those actions depend on certification and parliamentary functioning.

The article says certification was expected the next week, with swearing-in several days later. Netanyahu and Likud claimed the election was stolen, while Eisenkot said the results should proceed. Shin Bet called its inquiry narrow and said it did not invalidate Arab votes. The next test was whether the result would be certified and the coalition assembled.