Israel’s Democracy Defies Expectations

Three years after October 7, Israel has endured war, national trauma and bitter political divisions. Yet its election has revealed a society more resilient, more politically complex and more capable of democratic renewal than either its fiercest critics or its enemies might care to admit.

Israel’s voters have delivered a verdict that leaves almost everyone with something to celebrate—and something to worry about. Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud has emerged as the largest party in the exit polls, confounding predictions of his political demise. Yet the opposition parties together may command as many as 70 seats, compared with roughly 50 for the prime minister’s coalition. The electorate has spoken, but it has hardly settled the argument.

Once again, Israel’s political drama revolves around Netanyahu, a leader whose capacity for survival has become a defining feature of the country’s politics. After the security failures of October 7, 2023, many expected him to resign or be forced from office. Three years later, he remains a formidable political force.

His endurance reflects Israel’s tribal politics, in which party loyalties often express social identity, ethnic affiliation and ideological conviction as much as judgments about a leader’s performance. Netanyahu has mastered these divisions, turning them into a political instrument of extraordinary effectiveness.

Yet his revival cannot be explained by tribal loyalty alone. Some of the decisions that have made him deeply unpopular internationally have helped restore his standing at home. Even Israelis who despise him personally may acknowledge that the campaign against Hamas was a necessary response to the atrocities of October 7.

His supporters credit him with bringing home 168 living hostages and accounting for every murdered hostage, while overseeing a military campaign that severely weakened Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. They also argue that Israel has recovered some of the deterrent power shattered by the October 7 attacks. In their view, the country’s adversaries have been reminded that Israel remains a formidable military power.

Whether these achievements justify Netanyahu’s continued leadership is another question. But dismissing his political survival as mere irrationality overlooks the security calculations and national anxieties that shape Israeli voters’ decisions.

The election has exposed three competing images of Israel: the resilient democracy experienced by its citizens, the oppressive state imagined by some of its most hostile critics, and the remarkably persistent society confronting its enemies. Each contains elements of a larger reality, but none captures the whole.

Israel is a country of contradictions. Its politics can be ugly, its public arguments ferocious and its divisions profound. Yet it is also a society capable of remarkable solidarity, democratic participation and collective recovery.

The quiet strength of election day

The most striking feature of Israel’s election may have been the contrast between the intensity of its politics and the calm of its democratic process.

After the trauma of October 7, election day offered a reminder of what the country is fighting to preserve. Families picnicked and shopped, children enjoyed a day away from school, and voters queued patiently to cast their ballots. Despite the usual Israeli exuberance, impatience and argument, the process proceeded peacefully.

Turnout reached 77.7%, according to the figures reported in the election coverage. Millions of citizens participated in a contest whose outcome could reshape the country’s leadership and political direction.

For Israelis, this was more than a routine exercise in parliamentary government. It was an affirmation of political agency after years in which war, hostage-taking and national insecurity had made ordinary life feel precarious.

The ability to vote freely, criticise leaders and contemplate a change of government is especially valuable in a region where authoritarian rule remains widespread. Israel’s democratic institutions do not eliminate its problems, but they provide a means through which citizens can contest power rather than simply endure it.

The contrast with the country’s political rhetoric was striking. Netanyahu and his rivals have spent years trading accusations, exploiting divisions and questioning one another’s judgment. Yet when the time came to vote, Israelis participated in a process that was orderly and peaceful.

This capacity to combine fierce disagreement with institutional continuity is one of Israel’s more important strengths.

A nation divided, a society connected

Israel’s political divisions are real. They are also an incomplete guide to how Israelis live together.

The country’s military reserves offer a revealing example. Soldiers can hold sharply different views on religion, ideology, national identity and the proper direction of the state. In civilian life, these disagreements can produce heated arguments. Under military pressure, however, people who disagree profoundly must work together towards a common objective.

That cooperation does not erase the divisions. Nor should the experience of military service be romanticised as a solution to every social conflict. But it illustrates how a shared sense of responsibility can coexist with profound ideological differences.

The same complexity is visible in ordinary social life, where political opponents may find themselves celebrating family milestones, maintaining friendships and participating in the same communities.

Such connections rarely feature in international coverage of Israel, which tends to favour dramatic images of conflict and confrontation. Political extremism and discrimination deserve scrutiny, but they are not the only forces shaping Israeli society.

The election offered another example of this complexity through the participation of Arab citizens.

Arab Israelis have the right to vote and stand for office, and their turnout appears to have been substantial. Exit polls suggested that Arab legislators could account for around 14 seats in the next Knesset, potentially giving Arab-led parties significant influence over coalition negotiations.

For critics who describe Israel as an apartheid state without acknowledging the political rights exercised by its Arab citizens, this presents an uncomfortable complication. Their participation does not settle every argument about discrimination or the treatment of Palestinians living under Israeli control elsewhere. Nor does the existence of elections automatically guarantee equality.

But the ability of Arab citizens to participate in a competitive election, elect representatives and potentially influence the formation of a government is a meaningful feature of Israeli political life. It deserves to be recognised alongside the failures and inequalities that remain.

Indeed, the political backlash against Netanyahu’s rhetoric may have helped mobilise Arab voters. If so, the election would demonstrate how democratic competition can also provide a response to divisive politics.

The challenge for Israel is to translate that participation into effective representation and better government, particularly in communities that feel neglected or insecure.

Netanyahu’s victory may be less decisive than it appears

Netanyahu’s position remains formidable, but the exit polls suggest that the election has not delivered an unambiguous mandate for his coalition.

Likud’s emergence as the largest party is a personal and political achievement for a prime minister whose reputation was badly damaged by October 7. Yet the opposition’s combined strength could make it difficult for him to assemble a stable government.

The distinction between winning the largest number of seats and securing a parliamentary majority is crucial. Coalition negotiations will determine whether Netanyahu can remain in office, whether his opponents can unite around an alternative, or whether Israel faces another period of political uncertainty.

His potential dependence on hard-line nationalist and ultra-Orthodox parties could also impose costs. A government reliant on its most ideological partners might intensify domestic divisions, deepen disputes over military conscription and pursue policies that complicate Israel’s relations with allies.

The opposition, meanwhile, must demonstrate that it can offer more than a rejection of Netanyahu. It needs a coherent programme for national security, economic recovery, public services and the future of Israel’s democratic institutions.

The electoral arithmetic may have weakened Netanyahu without resolving the underlying political conflict. That is hardly unusual in a parliamentary democracy, but it does mean that the election’s ultimate significance will emerge only after the negotiations conclude.

For now, patience is required. Votes must be counted, coalition partners must negotiate and the political system must determine who can command a majority.

The temptation to declare a decisive victory or defeat should be resisted until that process is complete.

The view from Israel’s enemies

Israel’s recovery since October 7 has also complicated the expectations of its adversaries.

Hamas’s assault was intended not only to kill civilians and take hostages but also to undermine Israel’s sense of security. The ensuing war brought immense suffering, inflicted enormous damage and left difficult questions about the country’s strategic objectives. Yet Israel’s continued military capabilities and political resilience have frustrated those who hoped the attack would permanently weaken the state.

Iran, Hezbollah and Palestinian militant organisations may exploit Israel’s internal divisions in their propaganda. Some Western commentators have also treated the country’s political conflicts as evidence of inevitable national decline.

But Israel’s persistence suggests a more complicated picture. Its citizens continue to participate in public life, debate their leadership and pursue ordinary ambitions despite the trauma of war. The country has not escaped its problems, but neither has it collapsed under their weight.

Israelis also continue to report comparatively high levels of life satisfaction in international surveys, a striking feature of a society that has endured repeated security crises. Such measures cannot capture the grief of bereaved families, the anxiety of hostage relatives or the burden carried by soldiers and reservists. Nor do they mean that every Israeli feels secure or optimistic.

They do, however, complicate the image of a society defined entirely by fear and conflict.

There is a particular resilience in a country whose citizens continue to build families, celebrate milestones, argue about politics and plan for the future while confronting genuine threats to their security.

That resilience should not be confused with invulnerability. Israel’s enemies remain dangerous, its political divisions are unresolved and the consequences of October 7 will endure for years. But neither should its ability to recover be underestimated.

The test begins after the election

The election has reaffirmed Israel’s democratic vitality without resolving the questions that threaten its cohesion.

Netanyahu’s survival reflects the enduring appeal of his security credentials to part of the electorate, as well as the depth of the country’s political tribalism. The opposition’s combined strength, meanwhile, suggests that many Israelis want a different direction, even if they have yet to agree on who should lead it.

Arab voters have demonstrated that their participation can influence the political balance. The next government will have to decide whether to treat that reality as a legitimate feature of parliamentary democracy or as a problem to be contained.

It will also have to address the consequences of October 7, restore public confidence in national security, confront domestic crime and manage the tensions surrounding military service and judicial independence.

These are formidable challenges. They will not be solved by patriotic slogans or by declaring the election a victory for one political camp over another.

The country now needs something its politics often struggle to provide: patience, restraint and a willingness to accept the legitimacy of democratic outcomes.

If a new government emerges, its opponents should judge it on its performance rather than treating its existence as an affront. Supporters, in turn, should not confuse an electoral victory with a licence to disregard the concerns of those who voted against them.

Democracy is not simply the freedom to celebrate when one’s own side wins. It is the willingness to accept the rules when the outcome disappoints.

Three years after October 7, Israel remains a country marked by grief, insecurity and fierce disagreement. Yet it has also demonstrated the capacity to hold a competitive election, sustain public participation and continue functioning under extraordinary pressure.

Its contradictions are not evidence that the country can be reduced to a single, convenient narrative. They are a reminder that Israel, like any complex society, contains competing impulses: strength and vulnerability, solidarity and division, democratic resilience and political extremism.

The election has not resolved those tensions. It has exposed them once again.

Israel’s next chapter will depend on whether its leaders can turn the resilience displayed by its citizens into a more secure, cohesive and responsibly governed country.