Israel after the elections: results show the lack of a clear majority

No clear majority, a deadlocked parliament and a country divided down the middle: the final results of Israel’s elections confirm a deep political stalemate. With Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud winning just 27 seats and the entire governing bloc securing 53 – well short of the 61 needed to form a government – the vote has resulted in a close contest with Gadi Eisenkot’s new party, which won 21 seats. the first elections since the events of 7 October 2023 reveal a society grappling with multiple tensions over security, leadership and the very nature of the country’s democratic future. To analyse the election results, we spoke to Marcella Simoni, Professor of Israeli and Palestinian History at the Department of Asian and North African Studies (DSAAM) at Ca’ Foscari University of Venice.
Benjamin Netanyahu has led Likud for 33 years and has served as Prime Minister almost continuously since 2009, apart from a brief interruption between 2021 and 2022. Faced with a lack of a clear majority, the outgoing Prime Minister has pointed the finger at parties representing Palestinian citizens of Israel, accusing them of undermining the election result. These were also the country's first elections since 7 October 2023 and the ensuing devastating conflict.

What does this vote signify, and how should we interpret it? What scenarios might now unfold, and what can we expect for the country's future? How did 7 October influence voters' choices and shape the election result?

From a procedural perspective, the President of Israel will begin consultations with the leader of the political grouping that secured the most support, who will, in turn, open talks with the leaders of the parties in the opposition bloc. The prospective Prime Minister will then present a proposed government to parliament for a vote of confidence. Eisenkot is the frontrunner to be given the first opportunity to form a government by President Herzog, with 28 days to build a coalition, extendable by a further 14 days.

Politically, the key to resolving this impasse lies with the so-called Arab parties (Hadash, Ta’al and Balad, which form the United List, and Ra’am). Thanks to the exceptionally high turnout among Palestinian citizens of Israel, these parties achieved a historic result, winning 19 seats. They have indicated they would be willing to support a possible government led by opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot of the Yashar party, even without formally joining the coalition.

Within the opposition, there are currently at least two conflicting positions on this issue. Eisenkot initially stated that he would not be willing to include these parties, while Yair Golan, leader of the centre-left Democrats party (8 seats), sees the result as a historic opportunity to prevent Netanyahu from returning to power, thanks in part to the votes of Palestinian citizens of Israel. In the absence of a commission of inquiry into the 7 October attacks – something the Prime Minister has strongly opposed for the past three years – this election has inevitably also taken on the character of a referendum on Netanyahu himself and on his domestic and international political decisions, beginning with the hostage crisis and the war with Iran.

What makes these elections different from earlier ones?

I would identify at least four, if not five, distinguishing features. First, as already mentioned, the exceptionally high turnout among Palestinian citizens of Israel. Their vote represents both an assertion of their political voice and a form of protest. Palestinian citizens of Israel account for approximately 22% of the population and often live in areas where public services, including education and healthcare, are inferior to those available elsewhere in the country. Crime rates within the Palestinian community in Israel are very high, as is corruption, and previous governments have failed to address these problems. The 2009 film ‘Ajami’, directed by Scandar Copti and Yaron Shani, portrayed these trends many years ago.

Second, participation among Israelis living abroad was similarly high. An estimated 60,000–70,000 Israelis returned to the country to vote, evidently in opposition to the Netanyahu-led coalition.

Third, voter turnout reached 77.7%, surpassing many previous records and demonstrating how urgent and consequential voters considered this election to be. These factors also made it more difficult for some smaller parties to cross the 3.25% electoral threshold.

Fourth, the broader international context in which the elections took place: three years of war on seven fronts – a situation not seen since 1948 – with reservists mobilised for more than 100 days a year, growing international discredit directed at the country, and a resurgence of antisemitic acts and rhetoric in Europe and elsewhere.

What impact will this result have on Palestinians living in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and in Gaza?

At present, this is difficult to determine. The differences between the two blocs may appear limited, but there are fundamental distinctions. On the one hand, Eisenkot has declared that no Palestinian state will be established under his government. On the other hand, he supports reforming the Palestinian Authority and granting it greater responsibilities for self-government, albeit under continued Israeli military control. He has promised to dismantle outposts in the West Bank that are illegal even under Israeli law and to crack down on extremist settlers who terrorise the Palestinian population. He also opposes the E1 development project, which would effectively divide the West Bank in two and sever its link to East Jerusalem.
Regarding Gaza, both Netanyahu and Eisenkot have said that the Israeli army will not withdraw until Hamas has been disarmed. The opposition leader has also pledged to end Hamas rule in Gaza within 18 months of taking office – a process that is unlikely to be violence-free.

In the United States, the Democratic blue wave has swept aside the Republican Party and Donald Trump over the past two days. Is there a connection between these two election results? What consequences might they have for Israel and for Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and Gaza?

At present, at least four unresolved factors make it difficult to give a precise answer: the formation of the Israeli government; the final composition of Congress; the outcome of negotiations to form an Israeli government; and whether Trump will maintain the approximately $4 billion annual cut in aid to Israel.

What is certain is that dissatisfaction with the war against Iran, initiated by Trump and supported by Netanyahu, played a significant role in the US vote, alongside rising petrol and food prices and widespread economic anxiety. Indirectly, we might envisage a change of direction under a Democratic-controlled Congress, potentially restricting arms sales through the Block the Bombs Act, making assistance conditional on respect for human rights, and increasing pressure on extremist settlers. This could, in turn, prompt Eisenkot to follow through on his commitment to dismantle illegal outposts.

I would not say that the broader political issue – the establishment of a Palestinian state – was a major topic of debate or played a significant role in the US elections.