Netanyahu May Lose, But Not Power

Benjamin Netanyahu has defied expectations before, and Israel’s latest election may offer another opportunity for the veteran prime minister to outmaneuver his rivals. With the opposition seeking power, Arab parties gaining unprecedented influence, and President Donald Trump firmly in his corner, Netanyahu’s political future remains far from settled.

A Political Survivor Faces His Biggest Test

Israel’s election has produced a result few anticipated: a historic breakthrough for Arab political parties, a determined opposition seeking to end Benjamin Netanyahu’s tenure, and a right-wing bloc that remains very much in the fight.

Arab parties won a record 19 seats after Israeli Arab voters turned out in significant numbers, many hoping to prevent Netanyahu from returning to office. Their success could prove decisive in determining who governs the country next. The opposition, led by former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, has secured 48 seats and is seeking to assemble a parliamentary majority with outside support from Arab lawmakers.

On paper, the arithmetic appears to favor Netanyahu’s opponents. In Israeli politics, however, the numbers tell only part of the story.

Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, has built his career on political resilience, tactical maneuvering and an ability to exploit divisions among his opponents. Although his Likud party has fallen short of the 61 seats required to govern independently or through a supporting coalition, the prime minister has emerged from the election in a stronger position than many pre-election forecasts suggested.

His political future is far from assured. But neither is his departure inevitable.

The election was, in many respects, a referendum on Netanyahu’s leadership. His opponents campaigned against his handling of national security, the prolonged conflicts confronting Israel, his government’s controversial judicial policies and corruption allegations that have dogged his political career.

The October 7, 2023, Hamas-led terrorist attacks, in which approximately 1,200 people were killed and 251 abducted, remain the defining challenge of his premiership. The massacre represented the deadliest attack on Jews since the Holocaust and exposed catastrophic failures in Israel’s security establishment.

Netanyahu has faced intense criticism over his government’s inability to prevent the assault and his subsequent handling of the war. His refusal to accept personal responsibility for the security failures has further energized his opponents.

Yet predictions of a crushing electoral defeat have not materialized.

Likud remains the country’s largest individual party, while Netanyahu’s right-wing bloc has secured 53 seats. Approximately 450,000 absentee ballots are still awaiting counting, potentially improving his position, although the existing numbers leave him short of a governing majority.

For Netanyahu, the immediate challenge is to convert that relative resilience into a viable political arrangement. His opponents may believe they have the momentum, but they must still demonstrate that their disparate factions can cooperate long enough to form a stable government.

That is a formidable task in Israel’s fragmented political landscape.

The Arab Vote Changes the Equation

The success of Arab parties represents one of the election’s most consequential developments.

Their record performance has demonstrated the potential electoral influence of Israel’s Arab citizens, who constitute roughly one-fifth of the population. Their participation could determine whether Netanyahu’s opponents can assemble the parliamentary numbers needed to replace him.

But their potential role in government has exposed a fundamental dilemma for the opposition.

Arab parties have previously supported Israeli governments from outside a governing coalition. Under Netanyahu, however, opposition to relying on Arab lawmakers has become a prominent feature of right-wing politics, while some Israeli voters remain deeply uncomfortable with the prospect of Arab parties exercising decisive influence over national security policy.

Eisenkot and his allies campaigned against Netanyahu but stopped short of embracing a government dependent on Arab political support. Their reluctance could ultimately undermine their claim to offer a credible alternative.

Yair Golan, leader of the left-wing Democratic Party, has been among the more prominent opposition figures advocating cooperation with Arab parties.

Golan argues that Israel cannot build a durable political future by treating Jewish and Arab citizens as competing categories of voters whose participation carries different democratic weight.

His position highlights a difficult question confronting Israel’s political establishment: can an opposition coalition genuinely challenge Netanyahu while refusing to work with a substantial segment of the electorate?

For the prime minister, the divisions are politically significant.

Netanyahu’s opponents may agree that his leadership should end, but agreement on the alternative is far less certain. Their differences over Arab representation, security policy and the country’s ideological direction could prove difficult to reconcile.

The election has therefore delivered Netanyahu both a setback and an opportunity. His bloc lacks the seats to govern alone, but his opponents face the challenge of turning an anti-Netanyahu majority into a functioning administration.

Democracy, Citizenship and National Identity

The debate surrounding Arab representation reaches beyond the immediate contest for power.

Arab citizens of Israel possess voting rights and formal citizenship, yet longstanding disparities in public services, education, infrastructure and economic opportunity have fueled grievances about unequal treatment.

An analysis by the Council on Foreign Relations has examined the socioeconomic challenges facing Arab communities, including disparities affecting education and local development.

Israel’s political structure also distinguishes between its Arab citizens and Palestinians living in the occupied territories, who generally do not possess voting rights in Israeli national elections. Palestinians in East Jerusalem hold permanent-resident status unless they acquire Israeli citizenship, a process that carries its own complications.

These differences are central to the wider debate over citizenship, representation and national identity.

Israel’s Law of Return grants Jews and certain family members the right to immigrate to the country and obtain citizenship under specified conditions. In 2018, the Knesset passed the Nation-State Law, which declared Israel the nation-state of the Jewish people and designated Hebrew as the state’s official language, giving Arabic a special status.

Supporters regard Israel’s Jewish national character as fundamental to the country’s founding purpose and its role as a homeland for the Jewish people. Critics argue that aspects of the law reinforce existing inequalities experienced by Arab citizens.

The political consequences are substantial.

Israel has moved further to the right during Netanyahu’s years in power, and his governing alliances have included politicians whose rhetoric toward Arabs and Palestinians has drawn widespread condemnation.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich have become prominent figures in this political landscape. Both have faced criticism over statements and positions concerning Palestinians, territorial control and the future of Gaza.

Their influence has sharpened concerns among Arab citizens about discrimination and the direction of Israeli policy.

The war following October 7 also intensified the divide. Israel’s military campaign devastated Gaza, with Palestinian deaths rising into the tens of thousands, according to health authorities in the territory. The conflict has further damaged prospects for a negotiated settlement between Israelis and Palestinians.

For Netanyahu, these issues create both political risks and strategic advantages. His security-first approach resonates with voters who believe Israel faces persistent threats from Hamas, Iran and other hostile actors. At the same time, the divisions surrounding his government complicate efforts to build a broader national consensus.

The two-state solution, long a central element of international diplomacy, has also become increasingly difficult to advance amid the conflict, settlement expansion and opposition to Palestinian statehood among influential Israeli political figures.

The next government will inherit these unresolved challenges regardless of who ultimately occupies the prime minister’s office.

The Unity Government Option

Netanyahu’s opponents may have declared victory politically, but the constitutional process of forming a government remains a separate contest.

President Isaac Herzog is expected to consider the parliamentary balance and political recommendations before deciding which party leader should receive the first opportunity to assemble a governing coalition. Likud’s position as the largest individual party could give Netanyahu an important advantage in that process.

Herzog has urged political leaders to approach coalition negotiations with open minds and avoid forcing the country into another election.

That appeal has revived discussion of a national unity government bringing together Netanyahu’s right-wing bloc and the opposition.

Such an arrangement might appear improbable after an election fought largely over whether Netanyahu should remain in office. Yet Israel has a history of unity governments formed when conventional coalition arithmetic fails.

The prospect would present Eisenkot and his allies with a difficult strategic calculation.

Joining a government led by Netanyahu could give the opposition influence over policy, national security and institutional reform. But it could also extend the political life of the very leader they campaigned to replace.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, would have much to gain.

A unity arrangement could provide the parliamentary stability he currently lacks, broaden the government’s political base and reduce the immediate threat posed by a fragmented opposition. Depending on its terms, it might also give him greater room to maneuver on security policy and relations with Washington.

The alternative is for the opposition to assemble a coalition of its own, potentially relying on Arab parties from outside the government. That route would require sustained cooperation among political forces with sharply differing views on Israel’s national identity, military strategy and domestic priorities.

The opposition has demonstrated that Netanyahu can be challenged. Whether it can govern effectively without him is another matter.

Trump Remains a Powerful Ally

Netanyahu also has a significant advantage beyond Israel’s borders: his relationship with President Donald Trump.

Trump has publicly supported the Israeli prime minister and welcomed his stronger-than-expected electoral performance. Their relationship has long been an important feature of American-Israeli diplomacy, particularly on Iran, regional security and the future of the Middle East.

For Netanyahu, close ties with Washington could prove valuable during coalition negotiations and any subsequent confrontation with Iran.

The security threat posed by Tehran remains a major concern for Israeli policymakers. Iran’s nuclear ambitions, missile capabilities and support for armed groups hostile to Israel have shaped Israeli strategic thinking for decades.

Netanyahu has consistently argued that confronting these threats requires a firm approach and close coordination with the United States.

An escalation involving Iran could also reshape Israel’s domestic political calculations. A renewed security crisis might increase pressure on opposition parties to support a government of national unity, particularly if the country faced an immediate military threat.

That possibility should not be confused with certainty. Military action carries enormous strategic, economic and human risks, and decisions about war cannot be reduced to their potential domestic political consequences.

Nor is there any guarantee that a renewed confrontation would strengthen Netanyahu politically. A prolonged conflict could deepen public frustration, impose additional costs on Israel and expose the government to renewed scrutiny over its strategic decisions.

Nevertheless, Netanyahu’s close relationship with Trump gives him an important diplomatic asset at a moment when Israel’s next government remains uncertain.

For an Israeli leader confronting a complicated security environment, American support can carry considerable weight.

Another Election Could Favor Netanyahu

Even if Netanyahu cannot secure a majority, he is unlikely to leave office immediately.

Under Israel’s parliamentary system, a caretaker government can remain in place while political parties negotiate a coalition. If the talks become protracted, Netanyahu could continue serving as caretaker prime minister for an extended period.

That would preserve his position while his opponents attempt to resolve their differences.

The prospect of another election would introduce further uncertainty.

Netanyahu’s opponents might hope that a second vote would strengthen their mandate. But repeating an electoral result is never straightforward, particularly when turnout, campaign priorities and coalition calculations can shift.

Arab voters played a particularly important role in this election. Whether they would turn out in similarly large numbers again is impossible to predict. Disillusionment with the political process could affect participation, although it would be equally speculative to assume that Arab voters would conclude their votes had been wasted.

Netanyahu’s own supporters, meanwhile, would have an opportunity to regroup, sharpen their campaign and respond to the weaknesses exposed by the election.

The prime minister’s political career offers ample evidence of his capacity to survive seemingly intractable setbacks. He has repeatedly returned to power after periods in opposition and has demonstrated a formidable understanding of coalition politics.

His opponents must therefore consider whether another election would deliver a decisive breakthrough or simply prolong the uncertainty.

For Netanyahu, time could be an advantage.

Netanyahu Is Not Finished Yet

The election has exposed the limits of Netanyahu’s political dominance, but it has not conclusively ended his premiership.

His Likud party remains the largest in the Knesset, his right-wing allies retain a substantial parliamentary presence, and his opponents have yet to demonstrate that their coalition can sustain a government.

The historic success of Arab parties has changed the electoral equation, but it has also highlighted divisions within the opposition over the nature of a viable governing alliance.

A national unity government remains one possible outcome. So does an extended period of caretaker rule, followed by another attempt to assemble a coalition or a fresh election.

Netanyahu’s relationship with Trump and his emphasis on Israel’s security challenges provide additional political resources, although neither guarantees his survival.

There is also a broader question facing Israel: whether the next government can restore public confidence in the country’s security institutions, address domestic divisions and establish a credible strategy for the conflicts that continue to threaten its future.

Netanyahu will remain accountable for the failures and controversies of his tenure. But any judgment of his political prospects must also recognize his considerable experience, his party’s enduring electoral strength and the difficulties confronting his rivals.

The opposition may have found a route to challenge him. It has not yet proved that it can remove him.

In Israeli politics, an election result is only the beginning of the struggle for power. And Netanyahu, a veteran of countless political battles, has little reason to concede defeat before the final negotiations are complete.