Netanyahu’s longstanding allies are beginning to distance
themselves. United Torah Judaism, a traditional coalition partner, declined to
recommend any candidate to form the next government. Meanwhile, two Arab-led
parties endorsed Gadi Eisenkot, Netanyahu’s rival, strengthening Eisenkot’s
position in the presidential consultations.
The numbers remain complicated. Likud won 27 seats in the
120-member Knesset, while Netanyahu’s bloc secured 53—short of the 61 required
for a majority. Eisenkot’s alliance of Jewish-led parties won 48 seats, with
Arab parties holding 19. Whether Eisenkot can assemble 61 lawmakers remains
uncertain. The momentum appears to be moving away from Netanyahu.
President Isaac Herzog faces a consequential decision. His
responsibility is not to rescue a political heavyweight, but to identify the
candidate most capable of forming a stable government. Israel’s security and
diplomatic challenges, alongside its internal divisions, demand leadership that
can restore public confidence.
Netanyahu has questioned the election’s integrity, alleging
vote tampering and accusing Arab-led parties of stealing the vote. However, the
Central Election Committee said the election was not compromised. Casting doubt
on a legitimate result risks weakening the democratic institutions Israel
claims to defend. The peaceful transfer of power is not a procedural
inconvenience; it is a democratic foundation.
Since the US-Israel attack on Iran on February 28, I have
argued that Washington appears to act as an Israeli proxy. Yet the rapid
erosion of support for Netanyahu and Donald Trump suggests costs may be
mounting.
If Eisenkot secures 61 seats and forms a government,
Netanyahu’s political career could end—and legal accountability may follow,
subject to due process and the presumption of innocence.
Israel must decide whether to save Netanyahu, or save its
democracy, credibility and future. The country should come first.
