Israel’s October 27 elections have exposed a profound paradox: Netanyahu’s governing coalition has lost its parliamentary majority, yet the opposition remains unable to form an alternative without cooperation from Arab parties. In an exclusive interview with the ECPS, Associate Professor Noam Gidron of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem examines the implications of rising Arab electoral participation, entrenched affective polarization, and the resilience of Netanyahuism. He explores Likud’s increasing convergence with European radical-right populism, the long-term decline of Israel’s mainstream left, and persistent vulnerabilities in democratic institutions. Gidron argues that the opposition’s reluctance to cooperate with Arab parties reflects deeper political divisions that complicate coalition formation and prospects for democratic renewal in Israel.
Interview by Selcuk Gultasli
Israel’s October 27, 2026, parliamentary elections have produced a fragmented political landscape, exposing the limits of both Netanyahu’s governing coalition and the opposition’s capacity to translate electoral gains into political power. Although Likud emerged as the largest party with 27 seats, Netanyahu’s religious-nationalist bloc secured only 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, while the predominantly Jewish-led opposition won 48. The Joint List and Ra’am together captured 19 seats, potentially placing Arab political representation at the center of Israel’s coalition negotiations. Yet the reluctance of major opposition parties to cooperate with Arab factions has created a parliamentary deadlock, raising fundamental questions about political inclusion, democratic representation, and the future of Israeli governance.
In an in-depth interview with the European Center for Populism Studies (ECPS), Associate Professor Noam Gidron of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem examines this impasse through the interconnected dynamics of affective polarization, nationalist politics, and democratic backsliding. Highlighting the significance of increased Arab electoral participation, Professor Gidron observes that “the rising turnout among Arab citizens of Israel is one of the major developments in these elections, if not the most important one.” He emphasizes that this dramatic mobilization is “reshaping the Israeli political landscape,” while Arab parties remain politically marginalized within mainstream coalition calculations.
The central paradox, Gidron argues, is that Netanyahu has lost his parliamentary majority without the opposition acquiring a viable alternative. As he explains, “the opposition’s unwillingness to work with the Arab parties means that it also lacks a majority.” Consequently, “as long as the bloc opposing Netanyahu refuses to work with the Arab parties,”securing a Knesset majority remains exceptionally difficult. The opposition’s internal divisions compound this dilemma: while the progressive Democrats favor cooperation with Arab factions, more hawkish figures, including Avigdor Lieberman, reject such arrangements.
Beyond coalition arithmetic, Professor Gidron identifies affective polarization as a crucial explanation for Netanyahu’s enduring electoral resilience. Despite the October 7 attacks, the Gaza war, and controversies surrounding the judicial overhaul, emotional hostility between political blocs continues to constrain electoral realignment. He further argues that Likud has become increasingly populist, observing that, on relevant measures, it is “more similar to Alternative for Germany (AfD) than to the mainstream center-right Christian Democrats (CDU).”
The interview also explores the long-term decline of Israel’s mainstream left, the political marginalization of Palestinian citizens, and the institutional vulnerabilities of Israeli democracy. While changes in coalition composition could moderate pressures on judicial independence, Professor Gidron cautions that deeper structural weaknesses persist. Ultimately, he captures the democratic dilemma confronting Israel: “fighting for democracy, particularly liberal democracy, is itself polarizing. But it is still a fight worth fighting.”
