Israel has voted. The election of 27 October has left the country facing a familiar parliamentary challenge: how to turn a divided electorate into a functioning government.
With counting still underway, neither Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing and religious bloc nor the main opposition bloc led by Gadi Eisenkot has secured the 61 seats needed for a majority in the 120-seat Knesset. The final results will determine the precise balance. But the central question has already shifted from who will win the election to who can build a government.
To understand this moment, it is worth remembering where Israel’s parliamentary democracy began.
Israel’s first election, on 25 January 1949, was a contest among many parties. Nearly twenty lists competed for the Constituent Assembly that quickly became the First Knesset. Despite the War of Independence still casting its shadow, turnout approached 87 percent. Twelve lists gained representation.
Mapai, led by David Ben-Gurion, emerged as the largest party with 46 seats. Mapam followed with 19, the United Religious Front with 16, and Menachem Begin’s Herut with 14. Smaller parties also entered the chamber. From the beginning, Israel’s democracy required negotiation, compromise, and coalition-building.
Since then, Israel has maintained a continuous multiparty parliamentary system despite wars, terrorism, and existential threats. Its political landscape has changed considerably. Socialist parties dominated its early years. Today, the centre of gravity has moved to the right, while religious parties remain influential and competing visions of the country’s future continue to find expression at the ballot box.
This election has brought those competing visions into sharp focus. Conscription and national security have been central issues. The economy, education, Israel’s international standing, and institutional reforms also weigh heavily. The challenges facing the next government will demand both political judgment and the ability to govern beyond a narrow constituency.
Three figures have stood at the centre of the contest: Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister; Naftali Bennett, a former prime minister and defence minister; and Gadi Eisenkot, a former IDF chief of staff.
Each brings a different background. Netanyahu combines military service as a captain with decades of diplomatic and political experience. Bennett combines service as a major in the reserves with a career in technology and entrepreneurship. Eisenkot brings the experience of a career soldier who rose to lead the armed forces.
Their military backgrounds do not make their political positions identical. Nor do they settle the question of who should lead. But they reflect the central place that security occupies in Israeli public life.
Across Likud, Eisenkot’s Yashar, and Bennett’s Together, there is a broad commitment to defending Israel. Differences remain over strategy, leadership, and the future of Judea and Samaria, also known as the West Bank. The Democrats, led by Yair Golan, offer distinct positions on several of these questions while also placing Israel’s security at the centre of their programme.
Itamar Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit and Bezalel Smotrich’s Religious Zionism take harder-line positions on security and territorial issues. These differences will matter in coalition negotiations. A shared commitment to the state’s survival does not remove the need for serious debate about how best to protect it.
What the Vote Means
The emerging parliamentary arithmetic points towards difficult negotiations. Neither of the principal competing blocs appears able to govern alone. Arab parties could hold a decisive position, while the final distribution of seats remains subject to the completion of counting.
Winning the largest number of seats does not automatically deliver the premiership. The decisive test is whether a leader can assemble sufficient parliamentary support. President Isaac Herzog will consult party representatives before deciding whom to task with forming a government. In the meantime, the outgoing administration remains in office in a caretaker capacity.
The election has therefore sharpened the question of alliances. Netanyahu has opposed a government dependent on Arab parties, while Eisenkot and most of his principal allies have also resisted that route. Those positions leave a substantial gap between the seats each camp holds and the majority it needs.
The issue deserves precision. Arab citizens are part of Israel’s electorate, and their elected representatives have a legitimate parliamentary role. Whether particular parties can become governing partners must be judged by their policies, commitments, and willingness to accept a common programme.
For those concerned about the security implications of relying on parties whose positions diverge sharply from the main Zionist parties, a broad national government offers another path. In my view, it remains the course that would best serve Israel at this consequential moment.
Such a government would require difficult compromises. Its leaders would have to agree on security policy, conscription, economic priorities, and the institutional questions that have divided the country. Above all, they would have to decide that governing together is preferable to prolonging the deadlock.
The Economy Needs the Best in the Business
Israel’s economic future deserves the same seriousness as its security. The country has travelled a remarkable distance from the heavily state-directed economy of its early decades. Successive reforms, private enterprise, and technological development have helped build an economy with global influence far beyond the country’s size.
Israel’s technology sector is one of its greatest strengths. But innovation alone cannot resolve every economic challenge. Investment, productivity, education, public finances, and the cost of living all require sustained attention. The IMF’s 2026 assessment of Israel’s economy provides a reminder of the fiscal pressures accompanying the country’s growth prospects.
The economy needs to be handled by the best in the business. The next government should draw on the strongest available expertise and give businesses and households a credible sense of direction. Political instability makes that task harder. A government consumed by the struggle to survive will have less room to address the reforms and long-term decisions Israel needs.
Israel has changed significantly in its economic structure and political leanings. Yet, as my friend Dr. Lauren Amoss once observed, the people remain the same. They want to live in peace. To have a future. To celebrate life. The voters have now made their choices. The final count will establish the composition of the Knesset, but the responsibility for forming a workable government will rest with their representatives.
Despite the threats it has faced since independence, Israel has continued to hold elections, sustain political competition, and allow its citizens to argue openly about their country’s future. People get to decide. Get to vote. Get to argue. Get to disagree. Now Israel’s leaders must find a way to govern.
