Israelis went to the polls in extraordinary numbers on Tuesday, delivering an election result that, according to initial exit polls, left neither Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor Yashar leader Gadi Eisenkot with a clear path to forming a government.
The projections put both blocs around the 50-something mark, with Arab parties slowly approaching a historic 20 seats.
The figures are preliminary, and the final seat distribution could still change. Nevertheless, they raise a question that neither leader can easily avoid: What happens when two rival political camps emerge from an election without the parliamentary majority needed to govern?
One possibility is a national unity government bringing Netanyahu and Eisenkot together.
The truth is, politicians lie, and Israel’s politicians are no exception.
But there are some ideals we cannot stray from in a post-October 7 world, and the next Knesset cannot set itself up to be held hostage by one faction, be they Haredim (ultra-Orthodox) or Arabs.
Eisenkot and Netanyahu must form a true unity government
The solution is simple: Eisenkot and Netanyahu must set their differences aside to form a true unity government.
The mythical broad Zionist government we’ve heard so much about. The chance is here, within our reach.
The only roadblock is the ego of man.
The same ego, by the way, that saw thousands of votes trashed because too-small parties refused to face the music and back out.
Too good to be true
Such an arrangement would require significant compromises from both leaders, who have spent the campaign presenting competing visions for Israel's future.
For Eisenkot, entering a government alongside Netanyahu would raise difficult questions about his campaign commitments, particularly his criticism of the prime minister's leadership and the government's responsibility for the failures surrounding October 7.
For Netanyahu, partnering with Eisenkot would require negotiating with a political rival whose rise has challenged Likud's dominance and whose supporters have demanded major changes to the country's leadership and priorities.
These differences cannot simply be dismissed as personal animosity or political ego. They concern fundamental questions about accountability, democratic institutions, national security, and the direction of the state.
The high turnout, reported at 77.7%, demonstrated the importance voters attached to the contest. But participation alone cannot resolve the disagreements reflected in the resulting parliamentary math.
True unity seems too good to be true. After all our country has been through, can anyone really compromise? Of thinking outside of yourself and doing what's best for the country.
The coming negotiations will test not only the two leaders' willingness to compromise, but also whether their respective parties and potential coalition partners are prepared to accept such an arrangement.
Israel's voters have participated in the democratic process. The responsibility for interpreting the result and translating it into a functioning government now passes to their elected representatives.
Whether a Netanyahu-Eisenkot unity government can meet that responsibility remains an open question. What Tuesday's election has made clear is that neither leader can resolve the country's political deadlock through declarations of victory alone.
The precedent for cooperation already exists.
Eisenkot served in Netanyahu's emergency wartime government following October 7, before departing alongside Benny Gantz in June 2024.
That experience demonstrated that political rivals can participate in the same government during a national crisis.
They simply need to realize that, even without missiles, we are in a crisis.
Whether the vote was cast for Netanyahu or Eisenkot, we the people voted for stability.
We voted for peace and unity.
It's up to them to deliver it.
Follow us on GoogleSource: The Jerusalem Post · SHIR PERETS
At a glance
- Topic
- World
- Country
- 🇮🇱 IL
- Publisher language
- EN
- Added to Allnira