Izbori u Izraelu, utrka za pokazivanje najtvrđeg stava protiv Palestine

Benjamin Netanyahu’s political bloc emerged ahead of the opposition in Israel’s general election, yet failed to secure the parliamentary majority necessary to govern alone, according to final results released by the Central Elections Committee. The prime minister’s alliance of right-wing and far-right parties claimed 53 of the 120 seats in the Knesset, falling eight seats short of the absolute majority. The opposition camp, led by former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, tallied 48 seats. Neither side achieved the 61-seat threshold required to form a government independently, leaving the fate of the next administration in the hands of two Arab-led lists that collectively won 19 seats. This fragmented outcome sets the stage for protracted coalition negotiations or the possibility of another election if talks collapse. The final tally arrived after a contentious period marked by disputes over voting integrity. On the day before the results were finalized, Netanyahu’s camp amplified unproven allegations that Arab-Israeli groups had received foreign funding to influence the vote. Specifically, accusations centered on claims that the Raam party received money from Qatar to finance vote-buying operations. The Likud party declared the situation a "political earthquake," stating that Israel’s elections had been stolen. Both the Raam and Joint List parties rejected these accusations, with the Joint List describing the allegations as a campaign of incitement driven by fear of Arab voters’ growing political influence. Qatar also denied the charges. In response, Israel’s Shin Bet domestic security service announced it was investigating suspected irregularities, though the agency emphasized that the probe was not intended to cast aspersions on the broader Arab community that voted in a democratic manner. The acting director general of the electoral commission, Dean Livne, stated that suggestions of widespread electoral issues were entirely groundless. Government officials have so far provided no evidence to substantiate the claims of foreign interference. The election saw a historic surge in Arab voter participation. Turnout among Arab citizens reached approximately 80 percent, a sharp increase from the 53.2 percent recorded in the 2022 election, according to the Israel Democracy Institute. Overall voter turnout stood at 77.7 percent by the official closing time, marking the highest level at that hour since 1999. The Arab parties achieved their best historical result, with the Joint List securing 12 seats and the conservative Raam party winning seven. This performance nearly doubles their combined representation from the 10 seats they held in the previous legislature. The surge in support gives these parties significant leverage, as any viable government excluding them would lack the necessary numbers to pass legislation. Netanyahu’s bloc consists of his Likud party, which retained its status as the largest faction with 27 seats, alongside the ultra-Orthodox parties Shas and United Torah Judaism, each winning seven seats. The far-right Zionist parties Otzma Yehudit and Religious Zionism added seven and six seats respectively. Opposing them, Eisenkot’s centrist Yashar party led the opposition with 21 seats. The opposition was completed by the Beyachad alliance, comprising Naftali Bennett’s right-wing faction and Yair Lapid’s liberal center, which won 12 seats. The Democratic Party, heir to the old labor movement, took eight seats, while Avigdor Lieberman’s secular right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu secured seven. Analysts noted that the race focused less on the war in Gaza and more on domestic issues such as the conscription of ultra-Orthodox men, who are currently exempt from military service while reservists face repeated mobilization for conflicts in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran. Eisenkot framed the choice as one between a government of "military service fugitives" under Netanyahu and a government based on universal conscription. Despite the differences in tone and policy approach regarding international relations and the administration of Palestinian territories, experts observed that both major camps maintain a consensus on maintaining military capability in occupied areas. Neither leading candidate proposed ending the occupation or establishing a Palestinian state, suggesting that any change in leadership would likely involve a shift in diplomatic style rather than fundamental policy direction. The path forward remains uncertain. Eisenkot and several other opposition leaders previously ruled out forming a coalition with Arab parties, creating a dilemma for any attempt to displace Netanyahu. Regional analyst Danny Citrinowicz described the result as a victory for survival, noting that while Netanyahu’s block is weakened, the opposition lacks a clear route to power without breaking pre-election pledges. Former Netanyahu adviser Aviv Bushinsky viewed the outcome as a political resurrection, arguing that the prime minister remains in a position of strength during negotiations. Dennis Ross, a former US negotiator, highlighted the historic negotiating weight now held by the Arab parties, noting their power depends on whether other factions are willing to cooperate with them. If coalition talks fail, Israel faces the prospect of returning to the polls. Until a stable government is formed, Netanyahu is expected to remain in office as interim prime minister. The prolonged uncertainty has raised concerns about the impact on foreign policy, particularly regarding ongoing tensions with Iran. Some commentators suggest that extended negotiations could provide Netanyahu with the opportunity to escalate actions against Tehran, depending largely on signals from Washington. The current political landscape reflects a deep internal fracture, exacerbated earlier in the year when the Central Election Committee briefly banned all Arab parties from running, a move later revoked by the Supreme Court. That episode left a lasting mark on the democratic process, even as the courts ultimately allowed the parties to participate. The final results confirm that the key to governing lies with the very groups that faced attempts at exclusion prior to the vote.