Netanyahu accused of smearing Arab voters to hold on to power

Netanyahu alleged that Arab Israeli parties had used foreign backing to influence Tuesday’s election. He and his allies called for the Shin Bet to investigate supposed vote buying and other irregularities in Palestinian communities. The claims came after his coalition lost its parliamentary majority.

The accusations focused on alleged foreign funding, reportedly linked in press reports to Qatar, though Qatar categorically denied involvement. Netanyahu later posted a Likud statement warning of a “foreign takeover” of the Knesset and “Islamisation of Israel.” His opponents said the language was designed to frighten voters and delegitimise the result.

The claims were quickly rejected by police officials and election committee members. Dean Livneh said there appeared to be no basis for them, while police described voting as relatively trouble-free. President Isaac Herzog accused Netanyahu of tarnishing an entire community. Opposition leaders said investigations must not delay the new Knesset.

Arab Israeli parties are political parties supported by Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship. The article identifies the Arab Israeli community as roughly one-fifth of Israel’s population. It names two parties: the Joint List and Ra’am. Their purpose in this election was to represent Arab Israeli voters in the Knesset.

The two parties are separate political groups, but they won enough seats to shape parliamentary decisions. The Joint List’s leader was Yousef Jabareen. The article does not describe the parties’ full platforms, but it records their opposition to Netanyahu’s accusations and their possible cooperation with Jewish opposition lawmakers.

Together, the Joint List and Ra’am won 19 of the Knesset’s 120 seats. That was a historic high for the Arab Israeli community. Their leaders ruled out a formal coalition with the Zionist Change bloc, yet officials discussed tactical cooperation on votes, including efforts to replace the Knesset speaker.

The final results divided the Knesset among three forces. The pro-Netanyahu bloc won 53 seats. Gadi Eisenkot’s main opposition bloc won 48. The Joint List and Ra’am won the remaining 19 seats. The figures show why the election produced no clear governing majority.

A majority in a 120-seat parliament requires more than half the seats, or 61. Neither the pro-Netanyahu bloc nor Eisenkot’s bloc reached that threshold. The Arab parties therefore became the decisive parliamentary group, even though they did not belong to either major bloc. Their 19 seats were also a historic high for Israel’s Arab Israeli community.

The result left the next government uncertain. Opposition officials discussed tactical voting with Arab party representatives, including votes to unseat Likud politician Amir Ohana as speaker. However, the Joint List and the Zionist Change bloc ruled out forming a formal coalition, making individual votes especially important.

The 19 seats matter because the Knesset has 120 members and neither main bloc won the 61 seats needed for a majority. Netanyahu’s bloc has 53, while Eisenkot’s bloc has 48. The Arab parties therefore hold the balance of power between competing parliamentary forces.

Their influence does not necessarily require joining a government. The Joint List and Ra’am can support or oppose particular motions. The article says opposition officials discussed tactical voting with them to remove Amir Ohana, a Likud politician, as Knesset speaker and to pass some consensus legislation. That would give Arab lawmakers leverage over parliamentary procedure and lawmaking.

Their position is unusual because the Arab parties and the Zionist Change bloc have ruled out a formal coalition. Even so, coordinated votes could block Netanyahu’s allies or advance opposition proposals. The arrangement remains uncertain, but the 19 seats make Arab Israeli parties central to deciding what the new Knesset can do.

The Shin Bet is Israel’s internal security service. Netanyahu and his allies asked it to investigate alleged vote buying and irregularities in Palestinian communities. In this dispute, that request placed a security agency at the center of an election controversy, although the article does not report that the Shin Bet found wrongdoing.

Police officials provided the immediate law-enforcement response. They said the allegations were groundless and voting had been relatively trouble-free. The central elections committee handled electoral administration. Its acting director general, Dean Livneh, said there appeared to be no basis for Netanyahu’s claims. These responses challenged the call for a broad investigation.

President Isaac Herzog responded politically and publicly. He urged leaders to avoid tarnishing an entire community that had exercised its right to vote. Together, these reactions showed institutional resistance to unsupported allegations. Eisenkot still said any investigation should proceed without fear or favour, but not delay the new Knesset’s convening.

Tactical voting means lawmakers coordinate on specific parliamentary decisions without creating a permanent governing alliance. That option matters here because the Joint List and Ra’am rejected a formal coalition with the Zionist Change bloc. Cooperation could still alter the balance inside the new Knesset.

The article gives two examples. Opposition lawmakers and Arab party officials discussed using their combined votes to unseat Amir Ohana, the Likud speaker. They also discussed passing some consensus legislation. Arab parties could support one motion, abstain on another, or oppose a Netanyahu-backed proposal, depending on the issue. These actions would not necessarily make them cabinet partners.

This arrangement could help the opposition challenge Netanyahu’s allies despite lacking a majority alone. It could also create unstable, issue-by-issue alliances. The article does not say whether the plan would succeed. It does say the Joint List and the Change bloc ruled out a formal coalition, leaving tactical votes as the discussed alternative.

In a parliamentary system, voters elect lawmakers rather than directly choosing a government. After results are counted, parties negotiate to assemble a majority in the legislature. A governing coalition usually combines several parties and shares enough seats to pass budgets, support a prime minister, and survive key votes.

Here, the arithmetic prevents either main bloc from governing alone. Netanyahu’s bloc has 53 seats, while Eisenkot’s has 48. With 120 seats, 61 are needed for a majority. The 19 seats held by the Joint List and Ra’am can therefore provide support for particular decisions or help another bloc reach a governing threshold.

The article describes a less traditional route: tactical voting without a formal coalition. Opposition parties could seek Arab support to replace the speaker or pass consensus legislation. Whether that becomes a government, a minority arrangement, or continued deadlock is not specified. The immediate institutional next step is the new Knesset’s swearing-in within 14 days.