Netanyahu’s Bloc Leads Israel Election but Falls Short of a Parliamentary Majority

Table of Contents

• You might want to know
• Main Topic
• Key Insights Table
• Afterwards...

You might want to know

• How could Arab-led parties influence the negotiations over Israel’s next government?
• Why might the final seat totals change even after 99% of ballots have been counted?

Main Topic

Partial results from Israel’s general election showed veteran Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bloc narrowly ahead of the opposition, but without enough seats to govern alone. With 99% of ballots counted, Netanyahu’s Likud party and its far-right and ultra-Orthodox Jewish allies were projected to win 53 seats in the 120-seat Knesset. Former military chief Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar party and three other Jewish opposition parties in his bloc were on course for 48 seats. Both leaders said they would try to form a governing coalition.

The preliminary figures suggested a fragmented parliament and an uncertain path to a stable government. Arab-led parties were projected to secure an unprecedented 19 seats, potentially giving them considerable influence over coalition arithmetic. However, all but one of the Jewish parties had pledged not to cooperate with them, making it unclear whether those seats could translate into support for a government.

The count was not yet complete. On Thursday, officials began processing as many as 480,000 absentee ballots cast by people including soldiers, diplomats and hospital patients who could not reach polling stations. Under Israel’s proportional representation system, these votes could change the final number of seats allocated to each party. The 53-seat projection for Netanyahu’s bloc was therefore provisional, not a confirmed parliamentary result.

After official results are confirmed, President Isaac Herzog is expected to consult all political factions. He will then invite the leader he believes has the best chance of forming a government to attempt to do so. The process could take weeks. If no candidate succeeds, another election would ultimately be required.

At a meeting at his Jerusalem residence on Wednesday, Herzog praised the 77.7% turnout recorded in the previous day’s election. He described it as the highest participation rate in more than two decades and called it a sign of the strength of democratic engagement in Israeli society. Herzog said he expected to receive the official results next week and would then begin discussions with every faction. He urged political leaders to approach the consultations with an open mind and said that, after the election, every effort should be made to avoid another round of voting.

Both Netanyahu and Eisenkot argued that they should be given the opportunity to assemble a governing coalition. After initial exit polls from three Israeli broadcasters suggested Eisenkot’s “Change Bloc” could win between 52 and 53 seats, compared with 50 for Netanyahu’s bloc, Eisenkot said voters had spoken in favour of change. At Yashar’s election headquarters in Tel Aviv, he told supporters that the governing coalition had lost public trust and promised to work with his partners to turn the voters’ decision into a Zionist government.

The broadcasters later revised their projections. Two placed the rival blocs level at 51 seats, while another gave Netanyahu’s bloc a lead of three seats. Netanyahu appeared at Likud’s headquarters in Jerusalem and said his right-wing bloc had achieved a “great majority.” He called for a strong right-wing national government and rejected a government dependent on Arab parties he described as anti-Zionist. As counting continued, his bloc’s projected total rose to 53 seats—still 15 seats fewer than it had controlled in the previous Knesset.

The election was the first since the Hamas-led attacks on Israel on 7 October 2023 and the wars that followed in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran. Many Israelis viewed it as one of the most consequential elections in the country’s history. The outcome could determine not only who leads the government, but whether Israel continues along its existing hard-line, religious-nationalist path.

The campaign covered several major disputes: who should be held accountable for the security failures preceding the 7 October attacks; how the regional wars were conducted; whether ultra-Orthodox Jewish men should be conscripted into the military; proposed judicial reforms; and Israel’s standing internationally. These questions shaped voters’ choices and reinforced the divide between those seeking a change in direction and those who supported continuity.

Some voters expressed disappointment that the election had not clearly produced new leadership. Avigail Levine, from Kfar Saba, voted for former prime minister Naftali Bennett’s opposition Beyachad party. She told the BBC she believed the country needed new leadership and that people who held power on 7 October should not remain in office. She also said voters were frustrated that Netanyahu had not accepted responsibility for what happened three years ago, when about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage. Her husband’s grandmother was among those killed in Kibbutz Be’eri.

Other voters emphasized the security concerns that led them to support Netanyahu. Gal, from Ramat Gan, said he voted for the prime minister because Israelis could not feel secure or live peacefully with neighbours who, in his view, wanted to erase Israel from the map. He also said he was worried about the growing strength of Arab political parties. These contrasting perspectives reflect the central tensions in the election: security, accountability, national identity and the future relationship between Jewish and Arab citizens.

The United Arab List and the Joint List were projected to nearly double their representation, following increased turnout among Arab Israelis. Arab citizens make up about a fifth of Israel’s population and often describe themselves as Palestinian citizens of Israel. Mahdi Kabaha, who lives in a village near Haifa and campaigned to increase Arab turnout, called the result historic. He said Arab citizens had made clear that they wanted a genuine say in the country.

Joint List leader Yousef Jabareen told the BBC that some Arab voters were motivated by the prospect of removing far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir from office. Jabareen accused Ben-Gvir of racism and of provoking the Arab community. Ben-Gvir, who leads the Jewish Power party, has called for annexing the occupied West Bank, establishing Jewish settlements in Gaza and the “voluntary emigration” of Palestinians. Several Western countries have imposed sanctions on him for incitement against Palestinians.

United Arab List leader Mansour Abbas, who served in a short-lived governing coalition formed after the 2021 elections, said he hoped the numbers would allow his party and the Change Bloc to reach 61 seats in the Knesset. Yair Golan, leader of the left-wing Democrats party and a partner in Eisenkot’s bloc, also urged cooperation with Arab parties. He said there was an opportunity to form a change government through partnership and argued that Israel needed to confront fear and racism.

Whether such cooperation is possible remains contested. Eisenkot has previously raised objections or set conditions for an alliance, including recognition of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state and recognition of Hamas as a terrorist organization that must be destroyed. Right-wing parties in his bloc have rejected cooperation with Arab parties outright. Jabareen responded that opposition parties could not dictate all the terms and would have to negotiate if they wanted substantive change and an alternative to the far-right government.

The election was also followed by allegations about campaign conduct. Likud accused Arab parties of “stealing” the election and complained to the Central Elections Committee (CEC) on Wednesday. It alleged “bribery, threats, violence, fraud and the use of prohibited software to encourage voters,” but did not provide evidence in its complaint. The CEC said the claims would be examined as part of a comprehensive post-election review.

On Thursday, CEC chairman Justice Noam Sohlberg instructed the Shin Bet domestic security service to investigate what he called serious suspicions of improper influence through foreign funding by external actors operating against Israeli interests. He gave no further details. The Haaretz newspaper cited a source saying the committee had been presented with a claim that Qatar had provided funding intended to increase turnout in Arab communities.

Likud described the alleged activity as an attack on democracy and claimed it was intended to enable foreign control of the Knesset, the Islamization of Israel and the removal of a right-wing government. Balad chairman Sami Abu Shehadeh, who is part of the Joint List, rejected the accusation, calling it a racist blood libel and saying the losing side was calling on security agencies to use force to overturn the results. Qatar’s foreign ministry spokesman, Majed al-Ansari, denied that Qatar had interfered in the election or financed activities intended to influence its outcome. He called the accusations both ridiculous and dangerous.

At this stage, the central facts are the narrow lead for Netanyahu’s bloc, the absence of a clear majority, the projected gains for Arab-led parties and the continuing uncertainty over the final distribution of seats. The absentee ballot count, the official confirmation of results and the president’s consultations will all shape what happens next. The election has produced a complex parliamentary landscape in which political partnerships, previously stated red lines and the final ballot count could prove decisive.

Key Insights Table

Afterwards...

Israel’s immediate political future depends on the final ballot count and whether any leader can assemble a coalition that commands sufficient support in the Knesset. The president’s consultations will test whether the rival blocs can bridge their differences, especially over cooperation with Arab-led parties. If no workable coalition emerges, another election may eventually be necessary.

Beyond the negotiations, the new government will face unresolved questions about security, responsibility for the failures preceding 7 October, military service, judicial policy, relations with Arab citizens and Israel’s international standing. The results show that voters remain divided on these issues, while the projected gains for Arab-led parties highlight demands for greater political influence. The composition and durability of the next government will determine how those competing priorities are addressed.