Power or National Interest? Israel’s Election Raises Serious Questions About Netanyahu’s Leadership

Are all politicians leaders and are all leaders statesmen ? Certainly not. Political office, electoral success and the ability to command authority do not automatically confer the qualities of statesmanship. A true statesman rises above personal ambition, political expediency and partisan interests to protect the long-term welfare of the nation and its people.

Israel’s general election of 27 October 2026 may well be remembered as a defining moment in its political history. It was not a straightforward rejection of the incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, nor did it produce an outright victory for his principal rival, Gadi Eisenkot.

Rather, it exposed a significant loss of parliamentary strength for Netanyahu’s governing alliance and revealed a divided electorate increasingly concerned with leadership, accountability, security and the country’s future direction.

The paradox is striking: Netanyahu’s Likud emerged as the largest single party, yet the wider political alliance supporting his continuation in office fell from 64 seats in the outgoing Knesset to just 53 in the new 120-member Parliament. Neither the opposition grouping nor Netanyahu’s bloc secured the 61 seats required for a parliamentary majority.

The question, therefore, is not simply who won the largest number of seats. It is whether Israel can move beyond a political culture in which one individual increasingly presents himself as indispensable to the nation’s survival.

COMPARATIVE RESULTS OF KNESSET; 2022 AND 2026

TABLE 1. COMPARATIVE ELECTORAL RESULTS

TABLE 2. KEY CHANGES BETWEEN THE TWO ELECTIONS

Despite an increase of approximately 922,000 ballots cast in 2026 compared with 2022, Likud increased its vote count by only 52,122. Its share of valid votes declined from 23.41% to 20.52%, while its parliamentary representation fell from 32 to 27 seats. More significantly, Netanyahu’s bloc lost 11 seats, falling from 64 to 53 and thereby losing its parliamentary majority. These figures also illustrate how higher electoral participation does not necessarily translate into greater political support for an incumbent leader.

The figures convey two important messages

• Netanyahu’s alliance has lost its previous majority and can no longer claim an assured mandate to govern.
• Winning 19 Knesset seats Arab political representation has reached an unprecedented level, making the participation and cooperation of Arab legislators central to the formation of a possible alternative government.

The electoral mandate suggests the possibility of a collective majority, provided the parties overcome their differences and explore cooperation with Arab representatives.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, speaking to FRANCE 24 on 30 October, described the outcome as a dramatic political defeat for Netanyahu, arguing that his opponents, including the Arab parties, together had 67 seats against 53 for Netanyahu’s bloc. Barak also questioned the political purpose of allegations concerning Qatari funding and raised concerns about the possibility of military escalation with Iran.

The significance of the election is therefore much greater than the fortunes of any individual politician. It demonstrates that electoral legitimacy must be judged by the wider parliamentary arithmetic and the willingness of political representatives to work together.

Politics of Fear & Question of Accountability

Netanyahu has repeatedly presented himself as the leader best equipped to protect Israel against threats from its neighbouring states and regional adversaries. The devastating Hamas attack of 7 October 2023, followed by the wars and regional confrontations, has undoubtedly intensified genuine security anxieties among Israeli citizens. Nevertheless, a distinction must be maintained between protecting national security and exploiting public insecurity for political survival.

A government cannot indefinitely justify every military operation, every political controversy and every failure of accountability by invoking an atmosphere of national emergency. Nor should a prime minister be permitted to equate criticism of his leadership with hostility towards the country itself.

The current allegations surrounding foreign interference in the election illustrate the danger. Netanyahu’s camp has raised accusations involving Qatar and alleged improper influence through Arab political parties. Qatar has denied the allegations and the election authorities have not established evidence of systematic electoral interference. The legitimacy of Arab citizens’ votes must not be questioned merely because their political choices have altered the balance of power.

There is a fundamental difference between investigating specific, substantiated electoral violations and discrediting an entire community’s democratic participation. The reported attempts to portray Arab political representation as a national-security threat deserve particular scrutiny. Arab citizens of Israel are citizens of the state and are entitled to the same democratic rights as their Jewish compatriots. Their electoral success cannot reasonably be treated as an assault on Israeli sovereignty. A democracy is measured not only by the freedom of its majority but also by the protection it affords its minorities.

Religion, Nationalism and the Danger of Political Extremes

Religious bigotry, ultranationalism and militancy are distinct phenomena, but when manipulated for political purposes, each can become destructive to a nation’s democratic and moral foundations. Religion should inspire compassion, justice and responsibility. Nationalism should encourage collective progress and protect the interests of citizens. Political authority should provide stability, security and equal protection under the law.

When these principles are distorted into instruments of exclusion, supremacy and confrontation, their original purposes are betrayed. Israel’s political future cannot be secured by allowing religious extremism or uncompromising nationalism to dominate its institutions. Neither can the legitimate aspirations of Jewish citizens be protected by denying the political and human rights of Palestinians.

The challenge is not confined to Israel. Democracies everywhere face the danger of leaders who portray themselves as the sole protectors of national identity, religious values or territorial security. Such leaders often seek to transform political disagreement into a choice between loyalty to themselves and alleged betrayal of the nation.

That is the one-man paradox: a leader who claims to embody the nation may, through excessive personalisation of power, weaken the very democratic institutions that sustain it. Now the ball is in the court of the President of Israel Issac Herzog.