In the wake of Israel's recent general election, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies appear to be adopting a strategy reminiscent of Donald Trump's 2020 campaign. Like the former US president, Netanyahu is contesting the results after losing his parliamentary majority. He is actively pursuing legal avenues to delay the transfer of power, arguing that investigations into voter fraud and foreign interference warrant a postponement of the vote certification. Although this request was initially rejected, the move has introduced a layer of uncertainty into what was previously a routine bureaucratic process.
The parallels extend to media support. Netanyahu has found a vocal ally in Yinon Magal, host of the pro-government talk show 'The Patriots' on Channel 14. Magal's program, which attracts over 100,000 viewers nightly, has become a platform for promoting the incumbent's narrative. Recently, the show’s on-screen text referred to the situation as the 'Ballot Box Terror Affair.' Magal has recited unsubstantiated claims that voters were paid to support two Arab-led parties, which together secured a historic 19 seats in the Knesset. He further criticized left-wing media for what he described as a lack of outrage over the alleged manipulation of the democratic process.
Despite these similarities, many political observers believe that Israel is unlikely to experience a direct equivalent of the January 6, 2021, Capitol storming. The structural differences between the two political systems play a significant role in this assessment. The United States has a long transition period between election day and the presidential inauguration, allowing time for legal challenges and the amplification of conspiracy theories. In contrast, Israel's timeline is condensed. The vote is typically counted within days, certified about a week after the election, and the new Knesset is seated shortly thereafter. By November 10, the new Knesset is scheduled to take office, leaving little time for procedural disputes.
Furthermore, the seating of the new Knesset is only the beginning of the political process in Israel. Netanyahu's primary strategy for remaining in power is not necessarily to reverse the election outcome, but to block the formation of a governing coalition. Given the fragmented nature of the Knesset, which is divided into at least three blocs with no single majority, Netanyahu may be able to prevent his opponents from forming a stable government. If this occurs, a new election would be called, and he would continue to serve as caretaker prime minister. This provides him with multiple opportunities to delay his removal, unlike the US system where the transfer of power is more absolute once the inauguration occurs.
Netanyahu's past behavior offers some context for his current stance. He has been unseated twice previously, most recently in 2021, and in both instances, he left office peacefully, albeit with reluctance. During the 2021 transition, his camp described the incoming government as a 'fraud government,' and his allies heckled incoming Prime Minister Naftali Bennett. However, the transfer of power proceeded as scheduled. At the time, when asked if he would allow an orderly transition, Netanyahu jokingly replied, 'No, there will be a revolution,' before adding, 'What idiotic questions.' The video of this exchange was posted online by Yinon Magal, highlighting the long-standing relationship between the Prime Minister and his media supporters.
Historical precedents in Israel do suggest that violence at the Knesset is not unprecedented. On January 7, 1952, a mob stormed the Knesset in protest against a proposal to accept reparations from West Germany. Right-wing leader Menachem Begin had addressed the angry crowd, and following his speech, thousands breached police lines, throwing stones and injuring officials. The crowd was eventually dispersed using tear gas and fire. Although this event has largely faded from public memory, it demonstrates that the legislative building has been a site of significant unrest before.
Current signs of tension are already visible on the streets. Supporters of Netanyahu have gathered outside the home of his main rival, Gadi Eisenkot, with one protester accusing Eisenkot of responsibility for his son's death in battle. Additionally, a campaign sign for opposition figure Naftali Bennett was set ablaze in Tel Aviv. Such scenes of conflict are not new to Israel, as similar protests occurred in 2023 against the government's judicial overhaul. However, the current atmosphere is charged with a new sense of existential uncertainty regarding the functioning of the democratic system.
The opposition is responding with urgency. Yair Lapid, the leader of the opposition, described Netanyahu's actions as an 'extreme and dangerous attempt to disqualify the election.' He emphasized the need to establish a government quickly to remove Netanyahu and his allies from the Prime Minister's Office. In a joint statement, the leaders of the Jewish-led opposition parties declared their unity and intent to form a 'national emergency government.' They aim to put the clear parliamentary majority to work immediately, citing the conduct of the past few days as a reminder of the need for change.
The path to forming a stable government remains complex. The opposition will need to either create a partnership between Jewish and Arab parties or peel members away from Netanyahu's bloc. Neither option appears straightforward at present. Polls had predicted an inconclusive result for months, and that is precisely what the voters delivered. Now, Israelis face the dual challenge of determining the composition of their next government and assessing whether their democratic institutions can withstand the pressure applied by the incumbent Prime Minister and his media allies.
Democratic gatekeepers in Israel appear to be holding firm against the push to disrupt the process. Justice Noam Sohlberg, who chairs the Central Elections Committee, swiftly rejected Likud's request to delay certification. He noted that the committee lacks the authority to postpone the process and that doing so would contradict fundamental democratic principles. Both the Central Elections Committee and the Shin Bet intelligence agency have affirmed that the election was conducted properly and that ongoing investigations into fraud are not significant enough to alter the outcome. As the new Knesset prepares to be seated next week, the focus shifts to whether Netanyahu can disrupt the next milestones in the process or if his opponents will move quickly to unseat him.
