JERUSALEM, Oct 28 – Israel’s election has produced no clear winner, leaving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his main challenger, former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, facing an uncertain battle to form the country’s next government. Preliminary projections suggest that neither political camp is on course to secure the 61 seats required for a majority in the 120-member Knesset, raising the prospect of prolonged negotiations between parties.
As vote counting continued on Wednesday, Arab-led parties emerged as a significant factor in the political calculations, potentially influencing which alliances can command enough support to govern. The inconclusive outcome has also renewed debate over Arab representation, the direction of Israel’s domestic politics and the country’s approach to regional security, particularly the possibility of renewed military action against Iran.
Netanyahu remains in charge as interim caretaker prime minister while political parties assess the results and consider possible partnerships. The next stage will depend on the final distribution of parliamentary seats and President Isaac Herzog’s decision on who should receive the opportunity to assemble a governing coalition.
Preliminary Results Leave Both Political Camps Short of a Majority
Early projections from Israeli media indicated that Netanyahu’s Likud party and its allied factions could secure approximately 53 seats, while Eisenkot’s Yashar party and its partners were projected to win 48. Arab-led parties were expected to obtain a combined 19 seats, placing them in a potentially influential position during negotiations over the next government.
These figures remain projections rather than final results. Israel’s electoral system requires parties to negotiate alliances after voting, making the distribution of parliamentary seats more important than the percentage of votes won by any individual party.
Official data released by Israel’s Central Elections Committee on Wednesday morning showed that approximately 60% of ballots had been counted. At that stage, Likud had received 21.4% of the vote, compared with 16.2% for Yashar. The figures did not establish the final number of seats each party would obtain.
Hundreds of thousands of ballots cast by military personnel were also awaiting counting. Israel’s military reported a turnout of 79.9% among its personnel, an increase of more than six percentage points compared with the previous election. Some voting stations had been established in combat areas to allow military personnel to participate.
Final results were expected later in the week, potentially as early as Thursday. Until the count is completed, the parties face uncertainty over their negotiating strength and the range of coalitions they might be able to construct.
The lack of a clear majority could lead to weeks of political bargaining. Parties will need to weigh their policy differences, leadership preferences and willingness to cooperate with potential partners before a government can take shape.
President Isaac Herzog Prepares to Begin Coalition Consultations
President Isaac Herzog is expected to play a central role in determining the next stage of the political process. Although the Israeli presidency is largely ceremonial, the president has an important responsibility after an election because he selects the lawmaker he believes has the best chance of forming a government.
Herzog said he would receive the official results the following week, when the deputy president of the Supreme Court presents them to him. He would then begin consultations with political factions, hearing their positions, asking questions and discussing the available options.
He also emphasized the importance of avoiding another election. Herzog urged party representatives to approach the discussions with an open mind, highlighting the need to find a workable arrangement after another closely contested vote.
The president generally gives the opportunity to form a government to the leader of the party receiving the most votes. However, he is not legally required to select that person, meaning the broader prospects for assembling a parliamentary majority can influence his decision.
The uncertainty has prompted differing views among Israeli voters. Jerusalem resident Ran Cohen argued that Netanyahu should lead the next government, saying the prime minister understands how to conduct the job and communicate with international leaders.
Moshe Meri Cohen, also from Jerusalem, suggested that Netanyahu and Eisenkot should instead consider a unity government. He described Netanyahu’s diplomatic experience and Eisenkot’s fresh perspective as qualities that could complement one another.
Uzi Levy expressed doubt that the current results would settle the political dispute, predicting another election before voters ultimately decide which direction the country should take.
In Tel Aviv, voter Hanna Doukhan said the country appeared politically stuck and questioned whether a government could be formed without Arab parties. Another voter, Artsi Wine, expressed reservations about the prospects for reconciliation between Jewish and Muslim communities but acknowledged that Israelis would have to find a way to live together.
Arab Parties Gain Influence as Voters Demand Political Change
The strong preliminary showing by Arab-led parties has placed their potential role in coalition negotiations at the center of the election aftermath. Their representation could prove decisive if neither of the principal political blocs can assemble a majority without additional support.
In Nazareth, one of Israel’s largest Arab cities, residents expressed hope that the results could create opportunities for greater political representation and improvements in everyday life.
Brosli Elias welcomed the preliminary indications of strong support for Arab-led parties, expressing hope that the community would gain a place in government and secure greater recognition of its rights.
Residents identified rising crime and the need for more employment opportunities as important concerns. Awni Zoabi also welcomed what he viewed as a possible return to more rational political debate, pointing to growing tensions surrounding the use of Arabic in public spaces.
Zoabi said Arabic had increasingly been treated as though speaking the language were itself an offence, reflecting concerns among Arab citizens about exclusion and discrimination.
Yousef Jabareen, leader of the Joint List of Arab parties, called for a genuine and equal partnership between Jewish and Arab communities. In a post on X that was deleted within minutes, he presented his political camp as an alternative to a government he accused of promoting bloodshed, racial supremacy and exclusion.
Arab-led parties have traditionally remained outside Israel’s governing coalitions, although that pattern changed in 2021, when an Arab party joined a coalition government. Their possible participation in another administration is therefore both a political question and a broader test of whether competing factions can cooperate despite longstanding divisions.
The election has also attracted attention in the occupied West Bank. An Arabic-language newspaper there published a headline declaring that Arabs had brought down Netanyahu, although counting was still underway and the final political consequences remained uncertain.
Palestinians living in the West Bank were unable to vote in Israel’s election but closely followed the participation of Arab citizens of Israel. In Hebron, Khaled Shawar al-Tamimi argued that the two leading political camps offered little meaningful difference in their approach to Palestinians.
Another Hebron resident, Fahed Ahmro, expressed hope that a new government would uphold the law and address what he described as years of injustice.
In Gaza, residents similarly expressed limited expectations of change. Ayman Ahmed hoped Eisenkot would defeat Netanyahu, describing the available choices as a matter of selecting the lesser of two evils. Mohammed Abed argued that a change in leadership would not necessarily bring a major shift in policy toward Gaza because the two camps appeared to hold broadly similar positions.
Iran Tensions and Regional Security Remain Unresolved
Beyond the immediate coalition negotiations, Israel’s election has left significant questions about the country’s regional security policy unanswered. Concerns persist that Netanyahu could seek renewed strikes against Iran and attempt to bring rival political leaders into a unity government around national security.
Eisenkot addressed the issue in a speech early Wednesday, warning Netanyahu against using Israel’s security needs for political purposes while serving as caretaker prime minister. The warning underscored concerns that the uncertain election outcome could intersect with decisions involving military action and regional diplomacy.
Iran’s government had not issued a statement on Israel’s election by Wednesday morning.
Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr al-Busaidi also weighed in on the regional situation during an interview with Britain’s Channel 4 News on Tuesday. He urged whoever becomes Israel’s next leader to leave Iran alone and concentrate on finding a just resolution to the Palestinian question.
Al-Busaidi said he hoped Iran and the United States would return to negotiations. He questioned what further concessions were expected from Tehran and said that, based on what he had heard from American officials, he believed the dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme had been resolved following the bombing of its facilities.
The comments came amid continuing concerns about the possibility of renewed American or Israeli attacks on Iran, leaving the next Israeli government with potentially consequential decisions on security and diplomacy.
Netanyahu and Eisenkot had not made further public statements by late Wednesday morning in Israel after addressing supporters during the early hours. Both candidates and their political teams were waiting for a clearer picture of the results before determining their next steps.
Some Israelis who travelled thousands of miles to vote expressed disappointment that Netanyahu continued to attract substantial support following the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023, and the wars that followed. Tamar Ichilov, who flew from Toronto with her partner, said she was disappointed by the outcome and would return to vote again if another election became necessary.
Eti Wissotzky-Cohen, who moved to Britain with her family the previous year to escape Israel’s wars, viewed the preliminary results more positively. She said the strength of Arab-led parties suggested that including them in government might be necessary, offering an opportunity to build a more equal society while maintaining Israel as the national home of the Jewish people.
Meanwhile, a separate security incident unfolded outside Israel’s embassy in Belgrade, Serbia. Serbian police said an unidentified assailant armed with two knives attacked a guard early Wednesday. Interior Minister Ivica Dacic said authorities were treating the incident as a terrorist attack and had raised the threat level to its highest category while increasing security at key locations.
Dacic said the assailant was a minor who shouted “Allahu Akbar,” meaning “God is great” in Arabic, during the attack. The guard, a police officer, shot and killed the attacker in what the minister described as self-defense. The officer sustained minor injuries.
In Washington, US President Donald Trump pushed back against suggestions that Netanyahu was heading toward defeat. Speaking to reporters at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland after returning from campaign rallies in Texas, Trump said he had heard Netanyahu performed well and cautioned that it was too early to reach firm conclusions.
Trump said he had not yet spoken with Netanyahu about the results. He had endorsed the Israeli prime minister late in the campaign, while Netanyahu highlighted his close relationship with the White House during his election-night address.
With the final count still pending, Israel faces a difficult period of political negotiations. The outcome will determine not only who leads the next government but also whether competing parties can agree on a governing arrangement capable of addressing domestic divisions, relations with Arab citizens and the continuing security challenges across the Middle East.