The elections in Israel resulted in Benjamin Netanyahu not having the majority he needs to govern. Eisenkot’s Zionist opposition also failed to prevail, and Arab forces achieved historic representation. Behind the dispute over who will govern the Zionist state lies a deeper and more sinister agreement: to sustain a colonial state that perpetuates the genocide against the Palestinian people. Changing administrators does not mean an end to the occupation, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing.
By Oda Cuentas.
Elections in Times of Crisis
Netanyahu’s Likud party once again emerged as the leading political force, winning 27 of the 120 seats in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, but its coalition with other far-right parties failed to secure a governing majority: they secured 53 seats, far short of the 61 needed to form a majority. The opposition, led by Gadi Eisenkot—whose party, Yashar, won 21 seats—secured 48 seats together with its allies, while the two parties representing the Arab community won 19 seats. Voter turnout was 77.9%.
Netanyahu’s coalition lost its majority. The formation of the next government will depend on complex parliamentary agreements, if any are reached. Neither Netanyahu nor Eisenkot has a majority on their own. An alternative coalition would require some form of understanding among the Arab political forces, which is rejected by sectors of the more Zionist opposition. A unity government could also be negotiated, or new elections could be called. But the crisis of governability should not be confused with a crisis of this state’s colonial consensus, which—despite its nuances—remains united in maintaining the genocidal state.
Political wear and tear and protests against Bibi
Netanyahu went into these elections deeply weakened. His government faced mounting criticism over the attacks of October 7, 2023, its handling of the attacks, corruption investigations, and growing social unrest. Over the past few years, demonstrations against his government have grown in intensity. Protests demanding the release of hostages, calls for a ceasefire agreement, allegations of official responsibility for security failures, and earlier demonstrations against judicial reform all expressed significant opposition to Netanyahu.
However, it would be a mistake to automatically interpret these protests as a challenge to the Zionist project. Although there are some anti-colonialist sectors and organizations that denounce the occupation and genocide, the bulk of the institutional opposition did not adopt as its platform the dismantling of apartheid or the recognition of the Palestinian people’s right to reclaim their land. Netanyahu’s waning influence coexists with the persistence of a deeply reactionary nationalist consensus.
Netanyahu’s plan, which sought to impose a historic defeat on the Palestinian people by force, failed to break their resistance and faced an international mobilization of enormous magnitude, including massive protests, strikes, boycott campaigns, and growing criticism of some Western powers’ support for the genocide in Gaza. Added to this were protests within Israel itself—albeit with diverse orientations and objectives—which further eroded the government’s standing.
An opposition that wants to change the government, not the colonial regime
In that context, sectors of the Zionist opposition sought to present themselves as a more “moderate” alternative, capable of restoring the State of Israel’s international legitimacy and offering a government that was politically more acceptable to its Western allies, without questioning its colonial foundations or the oppression of the Palestinian people.
One of the main beneficiaries of the ruling party’s decline was Gadi Eisenkot, former chief of staff of the Israeli army and leader of Yashar. His rise in the polls reflects the search for an alternative to Netanyahu within the Zionist political and military establishment itself. Eisenkot does not in and of himself represent a break with Israel’s colonial policy: he even rejects the inadequacy of the “two-state” solution and defends Israeli control over security. Something similar is true of other members of the opposition. This is because even the factions that present themselves as “moderate” do not propose breaking with the Zionist character of the state. None of the major Zionist alternatives proposes dismantling the structures that enable the oppression of the Palestinian people. The dispute is over different strategies for preserving the same colonial order. The growth of Arab forces—with their various orientations—along with the Palestinian resistance, international solidarity, and the crisis of legitimacy surrounding Netanyahu’s project have all contributed to reshaping the political landscape, forcing even sectors within Zionism itself to seek new ways to sustain this state, whose nature they are unwilling to transform.
The Phenomenon of Arab Forces
One of the most significant developments in the election was the historic growth of the Arab parties, which increased their number of seats from 10 to 19: 11 for the Joint List and 8 for Ra’am. This result reflects the political clout of the Palestinian population, which, despite decades of institutional discrimination, continues to fight for representation and defend its rights. Furthermore, it made them a potentially decisive player in the formation of the next government. In the absence of clear majorities, the opposition coalition led by Gadi Eisenkot would need to secure the support of Arab parties to achieve a parliamentary majority, while other alternatives—such as a unity government or new elections—are being considered. A debate has even begun regarding a possible anti-Netanyahu alliance, although significant differences persist between the various factions within the Joint List and the Islamist and pragmatic orientations of Ra’am. Netanyahu, for his part, reacted by accusing the Arab parties of attempting to “steal” the election.
This situation highlights a contradiction: Palestinian representatives may hold the key to forming a government, while a significant portion of the Zionist parties reject their participation in power. And, above all, while a portion of the Palestinian population can vote and elect representatives in Israel, millions of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation lack the right to participate in the elections of the state that determines fundamental aspects of their lives. Winning more seats may serve to highlight the current plight of the Palestinian people, but Palestinian liberation cannot depend on negotiations to join governments that perpetuate the occupation.
Who is better at managing genocide?
While the parties discuss alliances, the Palestinian people continue to suffer a devastating offensive. An independent international commission of inquiry established by the United Nations documented tens of thousands of Palestinian victims and concluded that Israeli authorities had committed genocide in Gaza. Genocide, massacres, settlement expansion, forced displacement, and the denial of Palestinian rights have a history that predates Netanyahu by far. What the current government has escalated to a brutal scale has its roots in the very founding of the State of Israel. There is no moderate version of apartheid, nor is there a democratic way to carry out genocide. Some openly advocate for annexation and expulsion; others seek to preserve Israeli domination through methods that are more “acceptable” to Western powers.
The Farce of the “Only Democracy in the Middle East”
Decades ago, the United States and its allies portrayed Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East. But in reality, Israel’s democratic narrative is falling apart. In 2018, Israel passed a Basic Law that defines the country as a nation-state of the Jewish people and reserves the right to national self-determination within the state exclusively for that people. This legal inequality is compounded by discrimination, military occupation, and settlement expansion. The so-called “Israeli democracy” is built on the contradiction of guaranteeing the national supremacy of one group while denying the Palestinian people any and all rights.
The problem did not begin with Netanyahu, but in 1948 with the Nakba—the forced expulsion of approximately 750,000 Palestinians, the destruction of hundreds of towns, and the seizure of their lands. On that basis, a colonial settler state was established, which later became a strategic ally of the United States in the Middle East. Subsequent wars, the 1967 occupation, the expansion of settlements, and the blockade of Gaza further entrenched this process. Nor did the Oslo Accords guarantee an independent Palestine: they consolidated territorial fragmentation while indefinitely postponing Palestinian self-determination. For this reason, Palestinian liberation cannot be limited to demanding a change of government in Israel or negotiating a subordinate form of autonomy. It is necessary to dismantle the Zionist state and the imperialist relations that sustain it.
For a free Palestine, from the river to the sea
The election results reflect the contradictions of a regime that, despite maintaining a broad Zionist consensus, failed to break the Palestinian resistance or prevent political erosion and growing international isolation due to its colonial project. Netanyahu wins, but loses his majority; the opposition seeks to present itself as a more “acceptable” alternative without questioning the foundations of the State of Israel; and Arab forces achieve historic representation. The resistance of the Palestinian people and the massive expressions of international solidarity are essential to confronting genocide. From mass demonstrations in the world’s major capitals to boycott campaigns and strikes by port workers against the shipment of weapons to Israel, it has been demonstrated that there is a force capable of confronting the genocidal machine. We must deepen this struggle, expand the mobilization of workers and peoples, and demand that all governments sever diplomatic, commercial, and military ties with Israel.
But it is impossible to envision the definitive end of the genocide or the liberation of the Palestinian people as long as the structures of a state built on expulsion, colonization, and genocide persist. The solution cannot be to switch between Dracula and the Werewolf, but rather to dismantle the foundations that enable the perpetuation of that state; which is why we advocate for the dismantling of the Zionist state and the construction of a single, free, secular, democratic, non-racist, and socialist Palestine, stretching from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea—a Palestine that restores the historical unity of the pre-1948 territory. For there will be no just and lasting peace on the basis of apartheid, nor Palestinian liberation under colonial domination. The prospect of a free Palestine is inseparably linked to the revolutionary mobilization of the peoples, international solidarity, and the working class’s struggle against imperialism and the governments that sustain it. It is not a matter of choosing who administers the genocide, but of putting an end to the regime that makes it possible. For a free Palestine, from the river to the sea.
