Actually, Israel's election polls didn't get everything wrong. But reality is still gloomy

In the aftermath of Israel's recent election, political leaders must grapple with a crucial question: do they truly desire another round of elections? With a simple yet significant implication for the nation's future at stake, the elected representatives in the Knesset must reconsider their approach. The voters who chose Gadi Eisenkot, Naftali Bennett, Avigdor Liberman, and Yair Golan did not want the current result; they aimed to remove Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Months earlier, it seemed like this might happen, as opposition parties gained momentum and seemingly had the largest bloc, potentially forming a minority government. However, Netanyahu emerged victorious, securing a majority with approximately 27 seats, while his coalition has about 53 seats, more than the 48 seats held by Eisenkot's bloc.

The opposition, along with Arab parties, is projected to hold approximately 67 seats, meaning a majority will represent parties opposed to Netanyahu. Yet, governments are formed in Israel based on the ability to assemble 61 seats into a functional coalition. Neither side can achieve this at the moment, but Netanyahu appears to be in the stronger position.

There are two key factors: Israeli politics' deep tribal nature and Netanyahu's effective closing campaign focusing on fears of Iran and massive Arab turnout, tapping into deep-seated security concerns.

Given these realities, the next government needs to emerge from a specific path forward. First, Eisenkot cannot realistically form a government, making it almost impossible to imagine a scenario where he would establish one with support from Zionist opposition parties and Arab parties. Either Bennett or Liberman would likely reject such an arrangement, even if Eisenkot were willing to consider it, which itself seems unlikely.

Second, Israel cannot afford another election, as the country confronts ongoing threats from Iran, the unresolved issue of haredi draft, high living costs, growing deficit, and an increasingly isolated international standing. Additionally, the society remains deeply divided, struggling to recover from the trauma of October 7 and subsequent wars.

Revisiting the events leading up to October 7 reveals that the divisions within Israeli society have been burning for years, and five elections in less than three-and-a-half years did not create these divisions; they merely fueled an already existing fire. While the judicial reform was a significant issue, it only amplified existing tensions.

In light of these factors, the destructive cycle of frequent elections must be avoided. The ideological differences between Netanyahu, Eisenkot, Bennett, and Liberman that prevent them from sitting together in a government can be addressed, as their combined 68 seats would be sufficient to form a stable coalition, insulated from the demands of small sectoral parties or extreme factions.