Israel’s election: The Arab vote and Netanyahu’s politics of exclusion

Mansour Abbas is offering Israel a practical demonstration that Arabs and Jews can share responsibility for their country. Benjamin Netanyahu presents that possibility as a threat. Too many of his opponents still behave as though he is right.

That contradiction could determine whether Israel’s election on 27 October produces a change of government.

At a recent Economist conference in Thessaloniki, where I was also a speaker, former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami highlighted the dilemma: Netanyahu’s opponents may need Arab parliamentary support to govern, yet remain reluctant to accept that partnership.

Netanyahu does not necessarily need his opponents to lose. He needs them to remain unable to govern together.

The New York Times’ 16 October profile describes Abbas’s partnership with Yoav Segalovitz, a Jewish former senior police officer and centre-left legislator who is second on Ra’am’s electoral list. Their cooperation centres on fighting violent crime in Arab communities: a concrete test of whether shared government can deliver public safety.

The report also recalls Netanyahu’s own negotiations with Abbas in 2021, before Ra’am joined the coalition that removed him from power. Today, his campaign portrays Arab participation as a danger. Partnership apparently becomes intolerable when it threatens his position.

READ: Secret meeting held between US ambassador, opposition leader ahead of Israeli elections: Report

Yet Associated Press reporting on 16 October describes Gadi Eisenkot’s and Yair Lapid’s public rejection of coalitions with Arab-led parties. Outside parliamentary support remains possible, but requires negotiated commitments.

A Maariv poll published that day, reported by The Jerusalem Post, gave each principal bloc 51 seats, Arab parties 14 and the Reservists-Economic Party four outside either bloc. Ra’am’s six seats plus the opposition’s 51 would produce only 57; adding the four-seat party would reach 61. That is a mathematical possibility, not an agreed coalition or an election forecast.

Arab parties have distinct programmes. Their seats cannot simply be assigned to an opposition majority, nor their representatives dismissed as illegitimate because their voters are Arab. An opposition promising democratic renewal must challenge that exclusion.

Abbas’s compromises also deserve scrutiny. The Times reports criticism within Arab communities of his restraint over Gaza. Equal citizenship cannot depend on a minority politician proving endlessly agreeable to the majority. Public safety, housing, education and fair access to resources are obligations of government, not rewards for political silence.

Accountability is equally central. Before the Hamas attack of 7 October 2023, mass demonstrations challenged Netanyahu’s judicial overhaul. He was already on trial for bribery, fraud and breach of trust—charges he denies—with imprisonment possible if convicted.

Israel’s Channel 12 television news reported repeated strategic warnings about weakening deterrence before 7 October, rather than specific predictions of the attack. Netanyahu disputes the reports. They demand an independent investigation into what he knew, when he knew it and how he responded. His resistance to such an inquiry is indefensible.

In my view, he has turned prolonged emergency into an argument for his own indispensability. A catastrophe occurring on a leader’s watch cannot entitle him to indefinite political protection. Electoral victory cannot substitute for an inquiry or a court judgment.

The Hamas attack was indefensible. So too is the denial of Palestinian rights. Palestinian medical sources report more than 74,000 deaths in Gaza since 7 October 2023.

More than 20,000 children have been killed, according to Palestinian Health Ministry figures cited by the United Nations. Behind those numbers are lives cut short, bereaved families and futures destroyed. No claim of military success can make this devastation a foundation for lasting security.

READ: Netanyahu, opposition blocs tied as 55% back unity government if election inconclusive: Poll

The diplomatic costs are substantial. Pew’s 2026 survey found that 60 per cent of Americans viewed Israel negatively, up from 53 per cent in 2025. Its international findings showed increases from 64 to 73 per cent in Germany and from 66 to 75 per cent in Italy. These surveys do not establish a single cause; my judgment is that Netanyahu’s conduct in Gaza and support for settlement expansion have deepened the damage.

Even President Donald Trump’s personal backing cannot be taken for granted. In his TIME interview published on 1 October, he repeatedly avoided endorsing Netanyahu’s re-election. This does not establish a rupture between them. It does weaken Netanyahu’s claim that keeping him in office is essential to Israel’s relationship with Washington. American support for Israel is not a personal mandate for Netanyahu.

In the region, his continuation in office also risks raising the political cost of engagement. Security contacts may persist, but they cannot replace the public trust needed for deeper cooperation.

The Holocaust’s historical truth and Jewish suffering are immutable. What a government can squander is present-day moral credibility. Criticism of Netanyahu must never become antisemitism or collective blame.

Removing him, however, would only begin the reckoning. Opposition to Palestinian statehood extends beyond his coalition. His successors must be judged by their willingness to protect civilians, restrain settlement expansion and settler violence, uphold judicial independence and restore a credible Palestinian political horizon.

Arab participation in Israeli government cannot substitute for Palestinian self-determination. Both Israel and Palestine need internationally recognised, secure borders and the sovereignty and viability necessary for sustainable peace. Equal citizenship inside Israel and Palestinian statehood must advance together.

Israel needs a government capable of restoring trust. Keeping one man in office is not a national strategy.

OPINION: Türkiye’s message to the Middle East: Security requires peace

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.