Israel’s Election Points to Change, but Not a Clear Government

Israel’s latest election produced a sharp political message but not a clear government. According to PBS NewsHour reporting from Tel Aviv, projections show that parties opposed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu won more seats than the coalition he leads. Even so, Netanyahu’s opponents do not appear to have enough seats to form a majority in Israel’s 120-seat parliament. That means the country may face weeks, or possibly longer, of negotiations before it knows who will govern.

The election was Israel’s first since the October 7 attacks and the war in Gaza, and PBS reported record turnout. That matters because voters were not only choosing parties; they were judging leadership during a period many Israelis describe as a turning point. Netanyahu is Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, and his supporters and opponents see him in almost opposite ways. To supporters, he represents strength and experience in a dangerous region. To opponents, he represents a government they believe has harmed Israeli democracy and deepened divisions.

Israel’s system makes the result more complicated than a winner-take-all election. In a parliamentary system, voters choose parties, and parties receive seats. A government usually forms when several parties agree to work together in a coalition, which means a group of parties that share power even if they do not agree on everything. Because there are 120 seats, a coalition needs 61 seats to form a majority government. PBS reported projections of about 50 seats for Netanyahu’s coalition and about 53 for the coalition led by opposition figure Gadi Eisenkot.

That sounds like an opposition advantage, but it is not enough by itself. Arab parties, which oppose Netanyahu, were projected to win a record 17 seats. If those seats supported an anti-Netanyahu government, they could help change who leads the country. But PBS reported that Eisenkot’s coalition allies are unlikely to agree to work with those Arab parties. That is the central trade-off: the opposition may need support from parties some of its own members reject in order to replace Netanyahu. Refusing that support could leave Netanyahu with a chance to remain politically relevant even after his bloc lost seats.

One possible path would be a minority government, which means a government that has fewer than 61 seats but survives because other lawmakers agree not to bring it down. In this case, that would likely require some kind of support from Arab parties. Minority governments can allow rivals to remove a leader without fully joining forces, but they can also be fragile. Every major vote becomes a test of whether outside supporters will continue cooperating. For a country facing war, security threats, and deep social disagreement, some voters may see that as too unstable.

Another possible path would be a unity government, in which major rival parties govern together to avoid paralysis. PBS reported that President Trump and his aides would like to see Netanyahu and Eisenkot work together. But Eisenkot and leading opposition figures have refused that idea. Their refusal shows another trade-off. A unity government could give Israel a broader base for decision-making, but it could also disappoint voters who backed the opposition specifically to end Netanyahu’s rule. Compromise can look like responsibility to one side and betrayal to another.

The election also shows how political legitimacy can mean different things. Netanyahu’s party argues it won the most votes and that the opposition lacks a workable path to power. Eisenkot’s side argues that anti-Netanyahu parties gained more seats overall and therefore have a mandate for change. Both claims can be partly true. One focuses on the largest party or bloc’s staying power; the other focuses on the wider vote against the current leadership. In a divided parliament, the question is not only who voters preferred, but who can assemble enough trust to govern.

For now, the result is uncertainty rather than resolution. Israelis turned out in large numbers for an election many saw as historic, but the projections did not produce a simple answer. The next stage will be bargaining among parties whose disagreements are not minor. The hardest question may be whether removing a leader, preserving a coalition’s principles, and forming a stable government can all happen at the same time.