The upcoming Israeli elections are not merely a contest between Benjamin Netanyahu and his political rivals. Rather, they reflect a deeper struggle over the identity of the state, the nature of its political system, the boundaries between religion, nationalism, and democracy, and the future of the occupation and settlements, as well as Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians. Against the backdrop of the war on the Gaza Strip, escalating tensions in the West Bank and Jerusalem, and growing divisions within Israeli society, these elections carry implications that extend beyond the question of changing the government’s leadership to encompass the broader direction of Israeli policy in the coming period.
While the opposition seeks to bring the Netanyahu era to an end, the right-wing camp is attempting to preserve its political influence through alliances that bring together nationalist, religious, and conservative parties. However, whatever the election results may be, they will not necessarily resolve the structural contradictions that have deepened within Israel in recent years, particularly disagreements over military conscription, judicial reforms, the status of religious movements, and the influence of settlers.
Netanyahu and the Opposition—A Leadership Crisis or a Crisis of the Political System?
The elections are taking place in an exceptionally complex political environment. Benjamin Netanyahu returned to office in late December 2022, leading a right-wing coalition that includes nationalist and ultra-religious parties. His government has faced mounting domestic and international criticism over its handling of the war in the Gaza Strip, as well as controversy surrounding judicial reforms, the relationship between state institutions, and legal proceedings and international judicial measures related to the war.
Meanwhile, opposition forces are seeking to transform public dissatisfaction with the government’s performance into a viable political alternative capable of forming a governing coalition. The opinion polls cited in the report indicate that the opposition party Yashar, led by former Israeli military chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot, is ahead of Netanyahu’s Likud Party. However, this lead alone does not establish the opposition’s ability to secure power.
Israel’s parliamentary system does not directly elect the prime minister through a popular vote. Instead, the ability to form a government depends on the balance of power within the Knesset, which consists of 120 members. A governing coalition requires the support of at least 61 members.
Consequently, the central question in the electoral contest is not simply which party will win the largest number of seats, but which political camp will be able to assemble a cohesive coalition and sustain it despite ideological differences and competing party interests.
Imtans Shihadeh, director of the Israel Studies Program at the Mada al-Carmel Center, has described the elections as a significant moment in the struggle between two principal currents within the Zionist project: a liberal current, represented by substantial segments of the opposition, and a religious-conservative current that has led the government since 2022.
This perspective reveals that the contest for power also concerns the very definition of the state, the balance between its civil and religious institutions, and the place of individual rights and public freedoms within the Israeli political system.
The Jewish and Democratic Character of the State—A Contradiction Fueling Internal Divisions
The tension between Israel’s Jewish character and democratic principles is one of the central issues shaping the country’s political conflict. The confrontation between liberal and conservative currents is not limited to the distribution of government positions; it also concerns the extent of religion’s influence over legislation and public life, as well as the relationship between nationalism and individual rights.
In this context, Shihadeh argues that the conservative Zionist current seeks to reinforce the state’s Jewish character in both religious and national terms, while expanding the influence of religious institutions and ideas over everyday life. By contrast, segments of the opposition advocate a vision more closely associated with the Western liberal model and the preservation of the independence of judicial and civil institutions.
However, describing the opposition as liberal does not necessarily mean that it supports a comprehensive reassessment of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians. A distinction must be drawn between disagreements over the political system within Jewish Israeli society and disagreements over Palestinian national rights and the future of the occupied territories.
This distinction is particularly evident in the parties’ positions on the Palestinian issue. Shihadeh argues that differences among Israeli parties over foreign and military policy are less pronounced than their internal disagreements. Much of the competition, he suggests, concerns the effective management of wars and the political and diplomatic exploitation of their outcomes, rather than a fundamental reassessment of the principles underpinning Israeli policy toward the Palestinians.
Accordingly, a potential transfer of power from the conservative right to an opposition with liberal orientations would not automatically produce a fundamental shift in Israel’s position on the occupation, settlements, or Palestinian national rights. Changes in the way the state is governed may precede—or occur without—any substantive transformation in its policies toward the Palestinians.
The Palestinian Cause Between Conflict Management and Attempts to Impose a New Reality
The Palestinian cause occupies a central place in assessing the significance of the Israeli elections, particularly amid the continuing war and its humanitarian and political consequences, alongside expanding settlement activity and escalating attacks in the West Bank and Jerusalem.
Shihadeh warns that far-right currents are seeking to push the political debate toward the annexation of the West Bank and the normalization of Israeli control over the occupied territories, while maintaining pressure on the Palestinian population in the Gaza Strip. From this perspective, the issue is not simply a disagreement over how to manage the conflict, but an attempt to reshape political and geographical realities on the ground in ways that diminish the prospects for establishing an independent Palestinian state.
At the same time, significant segments of the Israeli opposition do not necessarily appear prepared to adopt an alternative political project based on ending the occupation and achieving a comprehensive and just settlement. As journalist and researcher Amal Arabi observes, liberal Israeli discourse sometimes focuses more on the idea of separation from the Palestinians than on presenting a clear vision for establishing a Palestinian state or achieving peace based on national rights.
This exposes the limits of the differences between the two camps. Their approaches to governing the Palestinian territories, the future of settlements, and relations between political and military institutions may differ without necessarily producing agreement on ending the occupation.
From an analytical perspective, the significance of the elections for the Palestinians should therefore not be measured solely by the possibility of Netanyahu’s departure or continued tenure. Rather, it should be assessed in terms of whether the next government is prepared to change policies affecting Palestinian land and people. The key criteria are practical positions on settlement expansion, annexation, displacement, and political rights—not electoral rhetoric alone.
The Haredim and the Conscription Crisis—Demographic Changes Reshaping Israeli Society
Beyond the political struggle between the government and the opposition, Israel faces deepening social and economic divisions linked to demographic changes, the position of ultra-Orthodox religious communities, and the distribution of military obligations.
In this context, sociologist Maha Sabah Karkabi argues that the war has brought compulsory military service back to the forefront of public debate. The conflict has placed increasing burdens on those required to serve and raised questions about the continued exemption of certain segments of the Haredi, or ultra-Orthodox Jewish, community from military service.
The crisis is rooted in historical and political arrangements that have allowed segments of the Haredi population engaged in religious study to benefit from exemptions or special provisions concerning military conscription. As military demands have increased during the war, the continuation of these arrangements has become a growing source of disagreement among Israeli political parties and institutions.
This issue is inseparable from demographic transformations within Jewish Israeli society. The Haredi population’s growth represents an influential factor in the long-term balance of social and political power. As its presence expands, so does its ability to influence coalition formation, legislation, and public policy, particularly given the reliance of right-wing governments on religious parties.
Three dimensions of conflict consequently intersect: an economic dimension involving employment, productivity, and public expenditure; a social dimension concerning lifestyles and the extent to which religious institutions influence public life; and a military-security dimension concerning the distribution of obligations and risks among citizens.
The dispute over conscription, therefore, cannot be reduced to an isolated legal issue. It reflects broader questions about equal citizenship, the limits of exemptions granted to particular groups, and the state’s ability to distribute public burdens in a manner that commands broad social acceptance.
This issue is likely to remain a source of political tension regardless of who becomes prime minister, because its roots lie in the structure of society, party alliances, and demographic trends rather than in the decisions of any single government.
Settlers and the Influence of the Right—A Challenge Extending Beyond Election Results
While the Haredi issue represents one of the most prominent sources of internal disagreement in Israeli society, the influence of settlers constitutes, according to Arabi, a more complex challenge for the future of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians.
The importance of this movement stems from its association with the settlement project in the West Bank and its ability to influence government policy, particularly when settler-aligned parties and representatives participate in governing coalitions. Settlement activity is not merely a social or ideological issue within Israel; it has direct consequences for Palestinian geography, the territorial contiguity of Palestinian communities, and the possibility of establishing a sovereign Palestinian state.
Consequently, a change of government does not necessarily mean that settler influence will diminish, particularly if their interests remain represented within parliamentary coalitions or if official policies supporting settlement expansion continue.
The difficulty is that the influence of this movement does not depend solely on the number of seats its political representatives win. It also depends on their ability to shape coalition formation and on the willingness of other parties to reach agreements with them.
Any incoming government will therefore face a complex equation involving the need to establish a stable coalition, ideological differences among its partners, international pressure concerning the occupation and settlements, and the security and political consequences of the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The Arab Vote and the Dilemma of Political Legitimacy
The elections also raise questions about the position of Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel and the extent to which their electoral participation can influence parliamentary power dynamics. In the absence of a clear majority for either political camp, the seats won by Arab parties may become an important factor in government formation or parliamentary support.
In this context, Arabi notes that Netanyahu has advanced the argument that a government relying on Arab votes lacks Zionist legitimacy. This position, in Arabi’s interpretation, reflects the limits of political acceptance for Arab parties participating in decision-making, even within a system that relies on parliamentary pluralism and coalition governments.
A political paradox emerges: Arab votes may carry considerable numerical weight in parliament, while the participation of Arab representatives in government remains ideologically contentious for segments of the Israeli political establishment.
The significance of this issue extends beyond the prospects for government formation to questions of citizenship, political equality, and the boundaries that nationalist discourse places on Arab citizens’ participation in state institutions.
Nevertheless, Arab voters should not be assumed to constitute a politically homogeneous bloc, nor should Arab parties be regarded as holding identical positions on every issue. Their actual influence depends on voter turnout, the distribution of votes, the number of seats won, the nature of potential alliances, and differing views on whether to participate in a government or support it from outside.
Can the Elections End Israel’s Internal Divisions?
The issues outlined above demonstrate that Israel’s internal divisions extend far beyond the conventional competition between a government and its opposition. They encompass disagreements over judicial independence, the relationship between religion and the state, compulsory military service, the distribution of economic burdens, the status of settlers, and the political participation of Arab citizens.
Election results may alter the parliamentary balance of power, but addressing these issues requires compromises that go beyond replacing individuals and parties. Contradictions arising from the state’s religious and national identity, demographic changes, and the military’s role in society will not disappear simply because power passes from one political camp to another.
Continuing disagreements over the management and consequences of the war add another dimension to the crisis. Political accountability intersects with security concerns, debates over leadership responsibility, the state’s priorities, the limits of the use of force, and the costs of conflict for Israeli society and the economy.
Nevertheless, the depth of these divisions does not mean that election results are insignificant. A change of government could affect legislation, the allocation of resources, relations among state institutions, the nature of political alliances, and the way the conflict with the Palestinians is managed. The extent of such changes, however, will depend on the composition and program of the new government and its ability to withstand pressure from its coalition partners.
A Change of Leadership Does Not Necessarily Mean a Change of Direction
The Israeli elections reveal a multidimensional crisis in which the struggle for political power intersects with the contest over state identity, while demographic and social transformations converge with questions of security, occupation, and the future of the Palestinian cause.
Whether Netanyahu remains in office or leaves the premiership would constitute an important political development, but it would not, by itself, determine the direction Israel takes in the coming period. That direction will depend on the composition of the governing coalition, the balance of power among liberal, conservative, and religious currents, the influence of settlers, and the government’s position on Palestinian rights and settlement expansion.
For the Palestinians, the central challenge is to distinguish between a change in leadership and a change in policy. Political competition within Israel may create opportunities for changes in governance, but it does not, in itself, guarantee an end to the occupation, a halt to settlement expansion, or progress toward a just political settlement.
Within Israeli society, meanwhile, divisions concerning religion, nationalism, democracy, conscription, and the distribution of social and economic burdens are likely to remain influential factors affecting the stability of future governments.
Ultimately, the true significance of these elections lies not merely in determining who will govern Israel, but in revealing the direction the state will take in addressing its internal crises. The central question is whether political change will lead to a reassessment of existing policies or merely redistribute power within the same political system.
Most read
