Israel Faces Potential Political Deadlock as Vote Count Continues, Netanyahu Falls Short of Majority

Israel's general election results are currently inconclusive, with no clear winner emerging between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his rival, Gadi Eisenkot. Exit polls suggest Netanyahu's bloc has lost its majority in the 120-seat parliament, the Knesset.

Netanyahu's bloc, which previously held 68 seats with ultra-Orthodox and far-right allies, is now projected to have 54 seats. A total of 61 seats are needed to form a governing majority. Over 70% of the vote has been counted, and while Netanyahu's Likud remains the largest single party, the final results, which will take several days to materialize, will determine the next government.

In the wake of the initial vote count, competing narratives have emerged from the leading political figures. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has asserted that Likud is the largest party in Israel and that the right bloc holds a major, decisive majority among Zionist voters.

Conversely, Gadi Eisenkot interprets the exit polls as a mandate for a new direction, claiming that the public voted against Netanyahu's continuous leadership as prime minister and that the distressed coalition has lost public trust. Despite these claims, CNN's Oren Lieberman points out that the math does not currently support either leader having a clear majority, with Netanyahu's bloc holding a projected 54 seats and Eisenkot's bloc 47 seats, based on over 70% of votes counted.

Despite Netanyahu's bloc opening a significant gap over Eisenkot's in current projections, his path to forming a government is complicated by the refusal of opposition parties to join his coalition. Oren Lieberman noted that Netanyahu is not at 61 seats, and it is unclear if he can reach that number.

All parties against Netanyahu have explicitly stated they will not join him, including the Arab parties, who are projected to hold a record 19 seats. Netanyahu's emphasis on 'Zionist voters' effectively excludes Arab parties from his calculations. He has notably refrained from declaring an outright victory, suggesting an awareness of the difficulties ahead in securing a majority.

Gadi Eisenkot, despite the opposition having potentially greater numbers against Netanyahu, faces significant hurdles in forming a government. His potential coalition would require reconciling diverse factions, including right-wing, centrist, and left-wing parties.

Some of these potential partners have already ruled out formal cooperation that would include Arab parties, making Eisenkot's political calculations very difficult. As a relatively new politician, Eisenkot must navigate complex political 'horse trading' to overcome these ideological divides and secure a path to victory, a task described as not impossible but certainly not easy.

In a standard political context, the ruling coalition losing 14 seats, dropping from 68 to 54, would signify a definitive loss. However, Israel's political landscape is not that simple, and the math for forming a government is uniquely complex. While a majority of the parliament ultimately opposes Netanyahu, ideological differences among opposition parties prevent an easy path to victory for Eisenkot.

The current situation is not merely a vote of no confidence in Netanyahu but highlights the intricacies of Israel's parliamentary system. Final results and subsequent political negotiations are expected to take several days, making the formation of a stable government a challenging endeavor.

Given the current political deadlock, Israel faces several uncertain possibilities, including the intervention of President Isaac Herzog. It is very possible that President Herzog may try to push for a unity government, encouraging Netanyahu and Eisenkot to work together, though the feasibility of such a collaboration remains unclear.

Another significant risk is that the country could return to elections in as little as six months. This scenario, however, might not resolve the underlying deadlock, suggesting a prolonged period of political instability. The complexities of coalition building, especially involving Arab parties, make any immediate resolution difficult.

Voters, particularly those against Netanyahu, perceive minimal differences between Eisenkot and Netanyahu on major security issues. Instead, their focus is on governance, seeking a calmer, saner, less corrupt, and less manipulative government. This sentiment comes after four years under a far-right government that presided over significant security events, including the attack on October 7th.

The current security landscape involves open-ended wars with soldiers occupying parts of Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, along with a threat of another strike on Iran. Despite these ongoing crises, there is public skepticism about whether a new administration would handle them better than the current far-right government. The primary concern for many is a change in the internal political climate rather than a drastic shift in foreign policy.

A crucial aspect of this election is the record-breaking turnout of Palestinian citizens of Israel, who constitute 20% of the population. These voters participated in huge numbers, seeking to have a say in their political fate, yet both major blocs, particularly Netanyahu's, have largely ignored them. This approach is described as both anti-democratic and anti-strategic.

Arab parties are objectively identified as 'kingmakers' because any alternative government to Netanyahu's would necessitate their cooperation. Despite their numerical importance and their community's stake in critical issues such as organized crime and police politicization, Jewish Zionist parties are accused of dismissing these voters. This dismissal complicates coalition formation, particularly for Eisenkot, who would rely on Arab parties to form a government.

Netanyahu has even labeled cooperation with Arab parties as 'shameful,' further illustrating the political divide and the challenges in forming a broad, inclusive government.

Uncertainty continues to surround the election results as the official vote count is still ongoing, with approximately 50 percent of ballots tabulated. A significant number of 'double envelope' soldiers' ballots, totaling over half a million, will not be fully counted until Thursday night, meaning the final numbers could still change considerably.

Despite the tight margins, pollsters who conducted the original exit polls remain confident in a projected majority for the Eisenstadt bloc when combined with Arab parties. The situation draws comparisons to the 1996 election, where initial exit polls differed significantly from the final results, leading to a shift in power overnight.

While a majority of Israelis express a desire for Benjamin Netanyahu to leave office, it is important to acknowledge that his party and far-right allies still retain a very strong support base. This polarization indicates a deep divide within the electorate.

Many Israelis who were affected by the events of October 7th remain highly focused on who is in power. Although the far right experienced a slight loss, this segment of the population continues to strongly support the current leadership, underscoring the complexities of Israeli political sentiment.

Grief-stricken families, including Rubicon, whose son was killed by Hamas on October 7th, held a minute of silence at Hostages Square on Election Day to honor those who cannot vote. Their primary demand is the immediate establishment of an investigation committee into the failures of October 7th. Rubicon expressed a working assumption that as long as Prime Minister Netanyahu remains in power, such an investigation committee will never be created.

Last week, Rubicon and other families of almost 50 U.S. victims killed on October 7th appealed to U.S. officials, including Secretary Rubio and Secretary Lot neck, to consider a U.S.-led congressional investigation. They believe Israel has failed to find accountability for their loved ones and are actively seeking answers through international avenues.

Rubicon argues that accountability for past mistakes, such as the events of October 7th, is essential to prevent their repetition. Beyond immediate investigations, he advocates for a long-term solution through building a foundation for economic integration between Israel and the Gulf states, drawing inspiration from the post-World War II European model that led to the formation of the European Union.

This strategy envisions his son's legacy as part of a push to expand the Abraham Accords, aiming to create economic interdependence that could prevent future vicious cycles of conflict and tragedy. Rubicon believes that learning from mistakes and fostering regional cooperation are critical for lasting peace and stability.