How Israel lost four elections in less than two weeks - analysis

The article uses “losses” broadly. It describes four elections within 10 days whose outcomes hurt Israel’s diplomatic, military, or political position. They were Serbia’s parliamentary election, Brazil’s presidential election, Israel’s own election, and the US midterm elections.

In Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić’s alliance lost to a student-backed list, potentially weakening a government that supplied Israel with ammunition. In Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva defeated the pro-Israel Flávio Bolsonaro, blocking hopes for a friendlier government. In Israel, neither bloc won enough seats to govern alone. In the US midterms, Israel became an issue in several races.

The consequences differ. Serbia may reconsider arms exports, Brazil remains under Lula’s anti-Israel leadership, and Israel faces coalition uncertainty. The US results could affect lawmakers’ views on aid, arms, and policy, although the article provides no detailed national outcome.

An election deadlock occurs when the results do not give any political camp enough parliamentary support to form a government independently. Israel’s system requires parties to negotiate after elections because several parties compete for Knesset seats. A government therefore depends on coalition agreements and continuing support.

The article gives both sides reasons to claim success. Likud was the largest party, and Netanyahu’s bloc led the change bloc. Yet parties outside Netanyahu’s camp, including Arab parties, won a clear majority of Knesset seats. Neither major bloc had enough seats to govern by itself, so both needed partners.

That creates uncertainty and political friction. Coalition talks could last months and might still fail. Any government formed would need compromises, including possible cooperation with haredi or Arab parties. Those choices could undermine its legitimacy because they contradict promises made before the election.

Serbia’s planned military deal with Israel was worth $1.6 billion. That makes it a major defense relationship, not merely a small procurement agreement. Its size also shows that military ties had become important in both directions.

The package included Israeli drones, long-range missiles, electronic warfare systems, and other military equipment. The article also describes a separate drone venture in Belgrade, where Serbia began assembling Israeli-designed drones. These projects connect the deal to local industrial activity, not only imports.

The future of the agreement is uncertain after Vučić’s alliance lost power. The victorious Student List promised to halt arms exports to war zones, publicly in connection with Ukraine. The article leaves open whether that pledge applies to Israel and what happens to the drone factory. A new government could therefore reassess cooperation.

Vučić’s defeat could weaken one of Israel’s strategically important defense relationships. After October 7, 2023, some Western allies restricted arms or weapons-component sales, while Serbia stepped up. A change in government could therefore affect Israel’s access to ammunition and future military cooperation.

Israel reportedly contacted Serbia on October 8, 2023, requesting ammunition. Vučić agreed, and 155-mm artillery shells were soon flown to Israel. The relationship also worked in reverse: Serbia signed a $1.6 billion deal for Israeli drones, missiles, electronic warfare systems, and other equipment. Serbia even opened a factory assembling Israeli-designed drones.

The student-backed list promised to halt arms exports to war zones. That promise was discussed publicly in connection with Ukraine, so its application to Israel is unknown. The drone venture’s future is also unclear. The new government may preserve cooperation, restrict it, or change the terms.

Lula’s victory mattered because Israel hoped Brazil would join a regional shift toward right-wing governments friendlier to Israel. The article names Colombia, Peru, Chile, Bolivia, and other Latin American countries as part of that broader political trend. Brazil’s result blocked that hoped-for diplomatic opening.

Flávio Bolsonaro’s expected victory was associated with his father’s policies. Jair Bolsonaro had opened a trade office in Jerusalem, strengthened defense and intelligence cooperation with Israel, and changed Brazil’s voting patterns at the United Nations. Netanyahu congratulated Flávio after he led the first round, saying they intended to renew the countries’ deep friendship.

Lula defeated Flávio, continuing Brazil’s opposite direction. Brazil backed South Africa’s genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice. Lula also compared Israel’s Gaza campaign to the Holocaust and recalled Brazil’s ambassador. His victory therefore closed an opening Israel had hoped to gain.

US midterm elections choose members of the House of Representatives and, in scheduled contests, some senators between presidential elections. They can change which party controls Congress. That matters because Congress has major influence over budgets, military assistance, arms-sale scrutiny, sanctions, and laws involving foreign policy.

Lawmakers can support or oppose military aid, place conditions on funding, question weapons transfers, and use hearings or legislation to pressure the administration. Their positions can also affect diplomatic debates about Israel. The article specifically says Israel was an issue in several US midterm races, placing those contests within its wider list of election setbacks.

The article does not identify the winning candidates, party control, or specific Israel-related votes. Therefore, its firm point is narrower: the midterms represented a political challenge for Israel. Their practical effect would depend on the elected lawmakers, committee leadership, and future congressional decisions.

In a multi-party system, votes are divided among several parties instead of concentrating in two large organizations. A party can win the most seats without winning a majority. That creates coalition-building: parties must combine their seats to reach the threshold for governing.

The largest party may need smaller parties with very different priorities. In Israel’s case, the article says neither major bloc could govern alone, while parties outside Netanyahu’s camp, including Arab parties, held a clear majority. A governing bloc therefore requires agreements over policies, appointments, budgets, and confidence votes.

Compromise is the mechanism that turns divided election results into a functioning government. It can also create instability when partners disagree or withdraw support. The article says Israel’s prospective government could face legitimacy questions because it might include haredi parties or rely on Arab parties, despite promises made before the election.