Israel’s politicians must put national unity before personal ambition - opinion

The recent Israeli election did not yield a clear winner, but it sent a strong message: Israel cannot survive another narrow coalition government. The political landscape is polarized, and the need for national unity has never been more urgent. While Benjamin Netanyahu's bloc won 53 seats, eight shy of a majority, Likud remains Israel's largest party, with 27 seats.

Despite the desire of some for Netanyahu's downfall, he remains Likud's leader, and his supporters show no inclination to replace him. However, Netanyahu must acknowledge that a broad-based Zionist government would require genuine compromise, particularly on crucial issues like the haredi draft and the establishment of an inquiry commission.

The opposing Change bloc, with only 48 seats, cannot claim victory. Gadi Eisenkot and Yair Lapid's attempts to portray these results as a triumph are misleading and offensive to Israeli voters. They should focus on accepting the electoral reality instead of being driven by an echo chamber of Netanyahu-obsessed advisers and sympathetic media personalities.

The election results clearly demonstrate that the extremes do not represent the mainstream. Itamar Ben Gvir and Yair Golan secured only seven and eight seats, respectively. The majority of Israeli voters want unity, security, economic opportunities, affordable housing, quality education, and competent government. While they may disagree on policies and personalities, they share more common ground than politicians acknowledge.

The extraordinary voter turnout of 77.9% reaffirms Israelis' commitment to democracy. The election's turnout, including significant participation by Arab citizens, disproves claims that Israel is an apartheid state that denies Arab citizens political representation. However, this right to democratic participation comes with responsibilities. Arab citizens deserve safe streets, equality, and meaningful representation, but they must also reject terrorism and respect democratic institutions.

While political leaders have the right to criticize government policies, justifying or glorifying the murder of Israeli civilians by their enemies is not acceptable. Political leaders who provide cover for terrorism betray their constituents and undermine Jewish-Arab coexistence. Democratic principles protect the right to dissent, but they cannot be used as a tool to destroy the state from within.

At this crucial juncture in Israel's history, political expediency must not be allowed to compromise national unity. A 79-seat unity government, comprising Likud's 27 seats, Yesh Atid's 21, United Torah Judaism's 12, Yisrael Beytenu's seven, the Religious Zionist Party's six, and Shas's six, would bring together major constituencies while excluding the extremes.

Such a coalition would require difficult compromises, particularly over Netanyahu's leadership. However, Israel's future matters more than personal rivalries. For years, politicians have blamed fragile coalitions, hostile opposition parties, and uncompromising coalition partners for their failures. A 79-seat government would eliminate these excuses.

No small faction could dictate national policy or threaten the government's survival whenever its demands were rejected. Most importantly, such a coalition could finally address key issues threatening Israel's future, like a realistic framework for haredi military service that balances religious concerns with a fairer distribution of the national burden.