Le Netanyahu désespéré s'attaque au nucléaire pour rester au pouvoir. La prochaine étape pourrait être la guerre avec l'Iran.

Israelis went to the polls on Tuesday, October 27, for the nation’s first general election in four years, resulting in a fragmented parliament where neither major political bloc secured the majority needed to govern. According to official results released by the Central Election Commission three days after voting concluded, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing alliance won 53 seats, falling short of the 61 mandates required for a governing majority in the 120-member Knesset. The center-right opposition bloc led by former military chief Gadi Eisenkot captured 48 seats. With no side holding a clear mandate, President Isaac Herzog will now determine which candidate receives the initial mandate to negotiate a coalition, a process that may require courtship of smaller factions and potentially Arab-list parties. The election result leaves the path to government uncertain and dependent on complex back-channel negotiations. Neither Netanyahu nor Eisenkot can form a cabinet alone. To reach the threshold of 61 seats, Eisenkot’s camp would mathematically need the support of the predominantly Arab parties, which collectively won 19 mandates, marking a historically strong performance for these groups. However, internal reservations exist within the opposition regarding cooperation with Arab representatives. Eisenkot has stated that any potential partners must sign a declaration affirming the Jewish and democratic character of the State of Israel, accept universal conscription, and designate the Islamic militant group Hamas as a terrorist organization. It remains unclear whether either bloc will welcome an Arab-aligned party into a coalition structure. The campaign leading up to the vote was marked by intense rhetoric centered on the threat posed by Iran. On Sunday, October 25, two days before the election, Netanyahu posted an AI-generated image on social media platforms, including X and Instagram, depicting a massive nuclear mushroom cloud rising over a densely populated city that appeared to be Tel Aviv. The post did not explicitly name the city but showed an explosion engulfing buildings beneath the cloud. Accompanying the image was a statement by conservative Israeli commentator Yuval Blumberg, who described the State of Israel as being in "real and tangible existential danger." Blumberg argued that if Iran acquired nuclear weapons, the geopolitical landscape would change irreversibly. He urged that Israel utilize the remaining two years of US President Donald Trump’s term to complete what he termed the "most critical mission" facing the current generation, warning that future administrations might adopt different approaches. Netanyahu’s post sparked immediate backlash from opposition figures who accused him of employing fear tactics to sway voters. Yair Golan, chairman of the Democrats party, criticized the move on social media, stating that the prime minister and his circle had "lost it" due to mounting pressure. Golan called for Netanyahu to be kept away from social media, arguing that on election day, the public would replace those spreading panic with leaders capable of restoring security and sanity. Gadi Eisenkot, Netanyahu’s primary rival, dismissed the imagery as a continuation of "lies and scare tactics." He noted that this specific instance threatened Israeli citizens with mass destruction, highlighting what he described as a failure to achieve previous war objectives against Iran. In a subsequent video, Netanyahu claimed that intelligence indicated Iran and its proxies might attempt to disrupt the elections with an attack, urging adversaries not to test Israel. Prior to the nuclear imagery, Netanyahu’s campaign faced scrutiny over other controversial remarks. During a television interview, he suggested using cryptocurrency to circumvent the impact of impending international sanctions. This comment drew sharp criticism from over 100 economists, including two Nobel laureates, who issued an open letter expressing deep anxiety over what they described as baffling proposals typically associated with criminal organizations. The Bank of Israel intervened to clarify that cryptocurrencies cannot serve as a route for bypassing sanctions, emphasizing that preserving economic relationships with key partners is essential for the nation's financial stability. Mark Sofer, Israel’s former ambassador to Australia, characterized Netanyahu’s campaign as disastrous, citing decisions that seemed to defy logic. Polling data in the final days of the campaign suggested Netanyahu’s bloc hovered around 50 seats, well below the required majority. Reports indicated that the opposition gained last-minute momentum, aided by instances of left-leaning Israelis traveling abroad specifically to cast ballots against the incumbent. Despite the statistical disadvantage, Netanyahu remains a dominant figure in Israeli politics, having first been elected in 1996 and serving in leadership roles for nearly 7,000 days. Analysts note that while fear is often a potent motivator in Israeli politics, particularly regarding the perceived existential threat from Iran, the use of apocalyptic imagery represented a notable escalation in campaign rhetoric. The upcoming phase involves President Herzog selecting a candidate to lead coalition talks. While the law does not strictly dictate that the leader of the largest party gets the first turn, the choice usually falls to the individual with the best prospects of assembling a stable majority. The coming weeks will see intensive negotiations among the various factions, with the balance of power potentially resting with smaller parties who can leverage their positions to extract policy concessions. The outcome of these talks will determine whether Israel returns to a familiar right-wing governance structure or shifts toward a center-right administration, a transition that would represent a significant break from recent political trends. Until a formal coalition is announced, the political landscape remains fluid, with both camps continuing to signal readiness to engage in the necessary diplomatic maneuvering to secure a working government.