By excluding Arab citizens, Netanyahu's rivals may hand him another term - opinion

Excluding Arab citizens from a governing coalition means refusing to count their elected representatives as possible partners in forming a government. It does not remove their citizenship or their votes. It blocks their political representatives because of group identity.

The article describes Arab Israelis as a “separate, detached entity,” disconnected from the country’s political debate. It criticizes leaders who exclude one-fifth of the population, even while calling themselves liberal and democratic. The key mechanism is political: Arab-led parties may hold seats, but other parties decide in advance that those seats cannot contribute to governing.

That choice narrows the alternatives available after an election. The article argues that leaders opposing Netanyahu could instead acknowledge equal citizenship and seek support from the excluded public and its representatives. Doing so could help prevent Netanyahu’s government from continuing, while also rejecting racism that the writer says is weakening Israeli society.

The article gives the Arab citizen population as roughly one-fifth of Israel’s population. It does not provide an absolute headcount. Even without that number, the share is politically significant because these citizens are represented through elected parties and are part of the country’s electorate.

In a parliamentary system, a government usually depends on enough elected representatives to support it. Seats held by Arab-led parties can therefore affect whether rival blocs can form a majority or sustain a government. Excluding those representatives removes a substantial pool of possible support before negotiations even begin.

The article’s central point is that this exclusion is both morally and politically costly. Leaders who call themselves a “change bloc” may warn that Netanyahu is steering Israel toward disaster, yet still refuse cooperation with Arab representatives. That decision can leave Netanyahu’s bloc stronger than its overall voter support would suggest.

A bloc can become the only workable governing option when rivals refuse to cooperate with part of the elected legislature. Excluding Arab-led parties reduces the number of representatives available to a coalition opposing Netanyahu. That can make his bloc appear dominant even when it has not won majority support from all voters.

The article presents three political groupings: a Netanyahu bloc, an opposing bloc, and a supposedly separate Arab group. This framing matters because it treats Arab citizens as outside the normal contest. If the opposing bloc will not seek their support, it may be unable to assemble enough backing, while Netanyahu can continue negotiating from a stronger position.

The writer therefore rejects the claim that Netanyahu’s bloc has achieved a true victory. The election created an opportunity for rivals, but only if they include all citizens and their representatives. Otherwise, exclusion can give Netanyahu permission to continue governing despite widespread concern about his record.

Under proportional representation, parties win legislative seats according to their share of the vote rather than one party taking every seat. The article does not explain the system’s technical rules, but it clearly describes its political result: separate parties are grouped into a Netanyahu bloc, an opposing bloc, and a supposedly unaffiliated Arab group.

The key mechanism is coalition bargaining. After seats are allocated, parties assess which partners can provide enough support to form or sustain a government. A bloc may therefore be the largest grouping without commanding a majority of all voters. Whether it governs depends on agreements with other parties and on which potential partners are accepted.

That is why the writer says this election differs from Netanyahu’s direct 1996 victory. A two-candidate contest has one winner, but a multiparty parliamentary result leaves room for negotiation. The article argues that Netanyahu’s rivals can still change the outcome if they stop excluding Arab citizens and their elected representatives.

The 1995 comparison concerns Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination, which the article describes as a catastrophic event caused by a determined gunman and a security failure. The writer says that without the security failure, the outcome would have been different. That makes the event a specific, one-off catastrophe rather than a continuing political pattern.

The 1996 comparison concerns a narrow but clear Netanyahu victory. Israelis went to bed expecting Shimon Peres to win, based on exit polls, and woke to news that Netanyahu had prevailed. In a direct election for prime minister, the result has one winner. There is no comparable coalition arithmetic.

The writer says the current result is different from both precedents. Netanyahu’s continuing support reflects a broader phenomenon, despite October 7, rising living costs, international isolation, and sanction threats. Yet the result is not final. Because no winner-takes-all majority exists, rival leaders can still build another government.

The alternative is a coalition built by the leaders of the change bloc with support from Arab citizens and their elected representatives. The article does not name a specific Arab-led party or claim that a completed coalition already exists. It argues instead that political leaders should recognize every citizen as equal in a democracy.

The mechanism is coalition arithmetic combined with a change in political rules. If rival parties refuse Arab representatives, they surrender possible support before negotiations begin. If they accept that support, they enlarge the pool of partners available to oppose Netanyahu. That could create a governing coalition capable of replacing his government, although the article does not give a seat-by-seat calculation.

The writer directly addresses Gadi Eisenkot, Naftali Bennett, Yair Lapid, and Avigdor Liberman, saying the country’s fate is in their hands. Their choice is between preserving exclusion or using the opportunity to reject racism and prevent the government from continuing.

Equal political participation is a basic democratic condition because citizens must be treated as members of the same political community. The article argues that excluding one-fifth of the population contradicts claims that Israel is liberal and democratic. It also asks why leaders would accept group-based exclusion after Jews experienced racism and demonization elsewhere.

The institutional mechanism is exclusion from decision-making. When elected representatives are declared unacceptable because of their group identity, votes do not translate equally into political influence. The result is a distorted choice of governments. It also normalizes racist assumptions and divides citizens into insiders and outsiders, rather than treating them as participants in one state.

The article connects this problem to Israel’s future. Leaders fear Netanyahu’s international reputation, effects on educated young people, and consequences for the country’s direction. If exclusion continues, the writer says Netanyahu can keep dismantling what earlier generations built. Inclusion could instead protect democratic institutions and open a path to political change.