Netanyahu Succeeded but Was Not Victorious: Israel’s Elections Open a Battle for Power

Posted on by Elijah J Magnier
Infographic titled “Netanyahu Succeeded But Was Not Victorious: Israel’s Elections Open a Battle for Power” by Elijah J. Magnier, comparing Netanyahu’s position and Eisenkot’s challenge around a 61-seat balance of power chart.
An infographic contrasts Netanyahu’s position with Eisenkot’s challenge as Arab parties hold the balance of power.

By Elijah J. Magnier

The voting has ended, and the battle has begun. Israel’s parliamentary elections have delivered neither victory nor defeat to the two principal contenders. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has succeeded in remaining politically relevant, preserving his leadership of the largest party and keeping alive his ambition to form another government. Yet he has failed to secure the parliamentary majority necessary to govern. His principal challenger, former army chief Gadi Eisenkot, has likewise failed to obtain the 61 seats required to form a government. The result is a fragmented Knesset in which neither camp can govern independently, while the Arab parties, marginalised by both contenders, may hold the balance of power.

According to the provisional results available on Wednesday, 28 October, Netanyahu’s right-wing bloc has secured approximately 53 seats, Eisenkot’s opposition bloc 48, and the Arab parties 19. These figures exclude approximately 600,000 outstanding votes cast through the special double-envelope system, including those of military and security personnel, prisoners, medical personnel, people with disabilities and other eligible voters unable to vote at ordinary polling stations. Their counting is expected to clarify the final distribution of seats, potentially shifting one or two seats between the competing blocs without necessarily changing the underlying parliamentary deadlock.

Netanyahu succeeded in mobilising considerable support by presenting himself as Israel’s indispensable wartime leader and portraying the Arab parties as a threat to the country’s political direction. His campaign sought to rally Jewish Israeli voters behind Likud and maximise his chances of preserving power. Although he remains the leader of the largest party, he failed to obtain the majority required to govern. His opponents can therefore claim that the electorate has rejected another Netanyahu majority, while Netanyahu can argue that he remains Israel’s strongest political leader. Neither claim, however, answers the question of who can assemble a functioning government.

The First Battle: Removing the Knesset Speaker

The opposition’s first opportunity to demonstrate that Netanyahu has lost control of parliament may come before a new government is formed. Its immediate objective is to replace Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana, a senior Likud politician and Netanyahu ally, with a candidate outside the prime minister’s influence. Unlike forming a government, replacing the speaker does not require agreement on a common cabinet or political programme. If Eisenkot’s 48 members cooperate with the 19 Arab representatives, they would command a theoretical majority of 67 seats, sufficient to replace Ohana, subject to the final election results and the willingness of those parties to act together.

Subscribe to get access

Read more of this content when you subscribe today.

Subscribe
Advertisements
Advertisements
Advertisements

Published by Elijah J Magnier

Elijah J. Magnier is a veteran war correspondent and analyst specialising in military affairs, intelligence, strategic affairs and political risk. He has spent nearly four decades living and reporting inside countries at war, often from the front lines, while developing long-standing access to political leaders, military and intelligence officials, diplomats, armed non-state actors and communities directly affected by conflict. His field experience includes the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the Iran–Iraq War, the Lebanese Civil War, the 1991 Gulf War, the wars in the former Yugoslavia, conflict in Sudan, the war in Afghanistan and Yemen, the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, the 2006 Lebanon War, and the wars in Libya and Syria. He has lived for extended periods in Lebanon, Bosnia, Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria, allowing him to follow conflicts, political transformations and regional networks beyond the limitations of short-term war reporting. His work focuses on warfare and deterrence, terrorism and counterterrorism, intelligence, political violence, armed non-state actors, regional security and the relationship between military power and political outcomes. He has also served as an adviser to the European Parliament’s Rapporteur on Iraq and Lebanon. Magnier holds a PhD in Policing and Criminal Justice from Liverpool John Moores University and an MSc in Counterterrorism Studies from the University of London. He has undertaken advanced studies in terrorism—including terrorist ideologies, financing and counterterrorism—at the University of St Andrews; terrorism and counterterrorism at Leiden University; and negotiation, including international and cross-cultural negotiation, at ESSEC Business School in Paris. His work combines sustained field access with academic analysis of war, sovereignty, deterrence and political violence.