ISRAEL VOTED. NOBODY WON. NOW EVERYBODY WANTS TO DEFINE DEMOCRACY.

Let's begin with the figures.

Netanyahu's Likud won 27 seats in Israel's 120-member Knesset.

Eisenkot's Yashar won 21.

Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett's B'Yachad won 12.

The Joint List secured 11, while Ra'am won eight.

Taken together, Netanyahu's established bloc secured 53 seats, the main opposition bloc 48 and the two Arab-led parties 19.

The majority needed to govern is 61.

Nobody got there.

According to the official Knesset election results, that is the parliamentary reality.

Now, here comes the interesting part.

When President Isaac Herzog consulted the parties about who should attempt to form a government, 67 lawmakers recommended Eisenkot.

Only 46 recommended Netanyahu.

Seven lawmakers from United Torah Judaism, traditionally a Netanyahu ally, withheld their endorsement.

The man whose party won the most seats received fewer recommendations to form a government than his rival.

And yet the rival with 67 recommendations doesn't necessarily have 67 people willing to govern together.

That is the first paradox.

And being the loudest politician in the room doesn't manufacture a parliamentary majority.

There is a lesson here that extends far beyond Israel.

Sometimes winning an election is easier than earning the political cooperation required to govern after it.

This is where things become particularly uncomfortable.

Arab-led parties won 19 seats.

Not one or two.

Nineteen.

The Israel Democracy Institute's analysis found that turnout in Arab and Druze localities rose from approximately 53.2% in 2022 to about 77% in 2026. Its analysis excluded Arab voters living in mixed cities, so that figure should not be mistaken for a complete national demographic calculation.

Nevertheless, the shift is extraordinary.

The Joint List and Ra'am increased their combined representation from 10 to 19 seats.

Think about what that means.

A community whose political participation had often been marked by scepticism decided, in substantially greater numbers, to participate in the electoral process.

And their votes helped prevent Netanyahu's bloc from obtaining a majority.

But here's the awkward part.

Eisenkot received the support of both Arab-led parties for his attempt to form a government.

Yet he has ruled out bringing them into government under the current conditions.

Several of his potential Jewish-led coalition partners also oppose depending on Arab political parties.

So let me ask a question.

Now, there are genuine ideological and security disagreements here.

Some Israeli political leaders argue that potential coalition partners must clearly reject Hamas, which carried out the October 7, 2023 attacks, and accept fundamental security commitments.

Those concerns deserve to be understood accurately, not dismissed as though security is imaginary.

Eisenkot has made recognition of Hamas as a terrorist organisation a condition for joining his prospective government. Ra'am leader Mansour Abbas has called for Hamas to be disarmed and removed from power, while declining the specific designation Eisenkot demands.

The Joint List, meanwhile, has offered outside parliamentary support without seeking full coalition membership.

These distinctions matter.

But the democratic dilemma remains.

I don't think that question can be answered simply by repeating the word security.

Nor can it be answered by pretending that every possible coalition partner agrees on national security.

It requires a serious explanation of which principles are non-negotiable, whether those principles are applied consistently, and what political inclusion actually means.

I have no interest in pretending that Netanyahu has survived Israeli politics for so long merely by accident.

He has demonstrated an extraordinary ability to retain political relevance, form alliances and persuade supporters that his experience matters in an exceptionally dangerous regional security environment.

His supporters point to that experience, his assertive posture towards Iran and militant organisations, and his argument that Israel needs strong leadership amid continuing security threats.

Those are real arguments in Israeli political debate.

But they don't make the difficult questions disappear.

On October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attackers killed around 1,200 people in Israel and took roughly 250 hostages, according to widely reported Israeli figures.

It was a catastrophic security failure.

And one of the central questions in the 2026 election was who should be held accountable for the political, intelligence and military failures that allowed it to happen.

Opposition figures have demanded an independent state commission of inquiry.

Netanyahu's leadership, his handling of the aftermath and the return of hostages have remained subjects of intense dispute.

Now, I'm not saying responsibility belongs exclusively to one individual. Serious institutional failures require serious institutional investigations.

But I find one leadership principle impossible to ignore:

Leadership doesn't work that way.

Or at least, it shouldn't.

If you have spent years presenting yourself as the person best equipped to protect a nation, a catastrophic security breakdown cannot simply become a historical inconvenience.

You may have explanations.

You may have evidence of failures elsewhere in the security establishment.

You may dispute accusations made against you.

Fine.

Then submit those explanations to serious independent scrutiny.

Because accountability should not depend on whether the findings will be politically convenient.

This is where I think many observers become too simplistic.

They imagine two political worlds.

Netanyahu represents one direction.

Eisenkot represents the opposite.

Remove Netanyahu, and Israel automatically becomes a fundamentally different country.

Really?

According to Reuters' October 22 analysis, both Netanyahu and Eisenkot oppose the establishment of an independent Palestinian state under current conditions.

Both have maintained hard-line security positions towards Hamas.

There are differences between them, including approaches to settlements in the occupied West Bank, governance, coalition partners and institutional accountability.

Those differences can be consequential.

But let's not manufacture an ideological revolution where there is substantial policy continuity.

Eisenkot could represent a different style of leadership, a different approach to domestic institutions and a different coalition structure.

That matters.

But Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank may reasonably ask a different question:

What actually changes for us?

Will there be a credible political future?

Will civilian protection improve?

Will settlement expansion be addressed?

Will prolonged conflict be replaced by a realistic process towards peace?

Will security policy produce anything beyond an endless cycle of military action and political uncertainty?

Those are serious questions.

And the answers are not automatically supplied by changing the name of Israel's prime minister.

This is one of the most uncomfortable dimensions of the election.

Israeli citizens, including Arab citizens, have the right to participate in Knesset elections.

But Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank and Gaza do not vote for Israel's parliament.

Yet decisions taken by Israel's government profoundly affect their lives.

That creates a fundamental distinction between the electorate choosing a government and the wider population affected by that government's policies.

I think this distinction deserves far more attention.

Because an election can be procedurally legitimate while still leaving enormous questions about rights, accountability and political power beyond the electoral process itself.

Israel's security concerns are real.

The trauma of October 7 is real.

The continuing threats to Israeli civilians must not be dismissed.

But Palestinian civilian suffering, displacement, restrictions and the unresolved question of self-determination are also real.

Recognising one does not require denying the other.

That question applies to every side.

Not just Israel.

Not just the Palestinians.

Every political movement that treats the accumulation of power as a substitute for solving the human problems that power is supposed to address.

After the election, Netanyahu and some of his allies raised allegations of irregularities and possible foreign interference connected to Arab voting.

There is an ongoing intelligence investigation into suspected foreign involvement.

That fact should not be concealed.

But neither should it be exaggerated.

On November 4, Israel's Central Elections Committee certified the results after finding no evidence that fraud or irregularities had compromised the outcome.

The committee's chairman, Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg, warned against undermining confidence in the legally binding results.

A suspicion is not proof.

An investigation is not a conviction.

And a disappointing electoral outcome is not evidence that an election was stolen.

These are not particularly complicated distinctions.

Yet political systems repeatedly struggle with them.

Of course, genuine electoral misconduct should be investigated.

If credible evidence emerges, it should be examined transparently and through lawful procedures.

And I don't care which political camp is doing it.

The principle should remain the same.

If you defend electoral institutions when they produce your victory but attack their legitimacy whenever they limit your power, you are placing your political interests above the rules that make democratic competition possible.

That's not a small problem.

It's one of the ways public confidence begins to disintegrate.

One of Israel's major domestic arguments concerns military service.

Ultra-Orthodox, or Haredi, men studying in religious institutions have long been at the centre of disputes over military draft exemptions.

Religious leaders argue that Torah study is central to Jewish life and that compulsory service threatens their communities' religious identity.

Critics argue that the exemptions are unfair, particularly after years of conflict, military casualties and repeated reserve mobilisation.

A 2024 Supreme Court ruling challenged blanket exemptions, but the political dispute continued into the 2026 election.

And now the coalition arithmetic has made it even more consequential.

United Torah Judaism's seven lawmakers withheld their recommendation for Netanyahu, reflecting disagreements that include the issue of conscription exemptions.

Consider the dilemma.

Israel has serious security needs.

Its military requires personnel.

Families carry the burden of repeated service.

Yet parties may need to negotiate exemptions from that burden in order to assemble a government.

Religious freedom matters.

National security matters.

Equality before the law matters.

A responsible government must grapple with all three.

But coalition bargaining can make serious ethical questions look like nothing more than the price of obtaining another seven seats.

And perhaps that's a problem with politics that extends far beyond Israel.

The moment politicians desperately need your support, your demands suddenly become negotiable.

Even when those demands involve principles they previously described as essential.

On November 7, Netanyahu called for a unity government, arguing that cooperation was essential to Israel's security and warning against a government dependent on parties he described as Islamist.

Eisenkot's Yashar rejected the appeal.

And there is a genuine dilemma here.

A broad government might reduce parliamentary instability and make it easier to confront national challenges.

It could also require political rivals to compromise on important disagreements involving accountability, judicial independence, military exemptions and the future of the conflict.

Neither possibility should be ignored.

But I'm suspicious whenever politicians begin treating unity as an unquestionable moral achievement.

Because unity can mean cooperation in the national interest.

It can also become an excuse to avoid difficult accountability.

Two political rivals sitting at the same table doesn't automatically mean the public interest is being served.

The question is what is being compromised.

Is it ego?

Party interest?

Personal ambition?

Or is it the very principle the politician promised voters would never be abandoned?

There's an enormous difference.

And voters deserve to know which one they are getting.

I find one feature of this election especially revealing.

So much political energy has revolved around Netanyahu.

Keeping him.

Removing him.

Defending him.

Holding him accountable.

Building a coalition with him.

Building one without him.

But Israel's problems are larger than one political career.

Its security challenges will not disappear because one man leaves office.

Its internal divisions will not disappear because he remains.

Its economy will not automatically recover.

The issue of military conscription will still exist.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will remain unresolved.

Questions about judicial independence, religious identity, minority rights and international relationships will continue.

And ordinary people will still need affordable housing, functioning institutions, safety and a government capable of making difficult decisions.

That's the trap of personality-driven politics.

People stop examining policies.

They begin defending identities.

Criticism of a leader becomes an attack on the community supporting him.

Support for an opponent becomes evidence of disloyalty.

Compromise becomes betrayal.

And suddenly the democratic process becomes an emotional battle between groups that increasingly struggle to recognise one another as legitimate political participants.

That's not a problem unique to Israel.

It's something many countries should recognise in themselves.

The most important thing about Israel's 2026 election may not be who eventually occupies the prime minister's office.

It may be what the process reveals about the political system.

A governing bloc that lost its majority but retains the largest party.

An opposition that received the most recommendations but remains divided over who is an acceptable partner.

Arab citizens who participated in historic numbers, only to see their representatives become central to arguments over political legitimacy.

Religious parties whose influence may extend far beyond their number of seats.

A country still confronting the security failures and consequences of October 7.

And millions of Palestinians outside the Israeli electorate whose lives remain deeply affected by the government's decisions.

None of these contradictions will disappear simply because President Herzog eventually asks someone to form a government.

And that, to me, is the real lesson.

An election can tell you how political power is distributed.

It cannot automatically tell you whether that power will be exercised wisely.

So here's the uncomfortable question I'm leaving in The Crazy Journal:

And to those who promise change:

If your victory requires the support of people you refuse to treat as legitimate political partners, what exactly does your promise of inclusion mean?

And to those who promise security:

How should voters measure your success when the country remains deeply divided over the failures and sacrifices of the past?

And to everyone watching from outside Israel:

Don't reduce this election to a football match.

This isn't simply Netanyahu versus Eisenkot.

There are real people behind these political calculations.

Israeli families.

Arab citizens.

Religious communities.

Soldiers and reservists.

Palestinian civilians.

People whose futures will be shaped by political decisions they may have little ability to influence.

The election is over.

The negotiations are continuing.

And the most uncomfortable truth remains:

Because the ultimate measure of democratic leadership isn't simply whether you can assemble 61 seats.

It's what you do with the power those seats give you.

---

Written 7 November 2026. Analysis reflects developments known on that date; government-formation negotiations remain ongoing.

The Crazy Journal — where winning an argument is never a substitute for answering the difficult question.