The week had barely begun when there was already electoral news: Leaders of the Zionist opposition parties in Israel met on Saturday evening and issued a sort of Pax-anti-Bibi that prioritizes replacing his government over mudslinging at one another. New and enticing polls are coming in. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu went to the UN last week – what could that do to his electoral strength?
But the big, sad common takeaway from all of these things is that one month out from Israeli elections, we're no closer to knowing who will win.
Yet the question of who will form and lead the next government is only one type of winning. In understandable frenzy over who will be prime minister, there's something else we can know, and few are discussing: the Knesset. Which parties will win and dominate the next Knesset matters.

Even in a system where the majority of parliament is usually controlled by a coalition, the Knesset as a whole will set the normative bounds for the kinds of laws Israel will pass (or repeal), which bills they will debate and what kinds of discussions they will communicate to the public. These will both guide Israel's future and reflect its identity.


The Knesset's makeup is particularly important in this election, in a way. One of the not-remote electoral scenarios is that the opposition parties cannot agree on a sufficient number of partners to reach 61 out of 120 seats, and they form a minority government instead, which lasts until it falls. In that case the minority government will continue to lead until new elections and fresh coalition-building – in other words, quite a while.
Now, most Israeli legislation does not require an absolute majority to pass, only a plurality (the majority of those who show up and vote that day). But one that does require a majority is the law to disband the Knesset before the term is up – so it matters, for example, how much de facto support a minority coalition has from parties on the "outside." A few others, such as amendments to certain Basic Laws or clauses, including to postpone elections or change the coalition ("constructive no-confidence") also require a majority.
In other words, a coalition that commands only a minority of legislators is structurally handicapped, because it faces the threat of being disbanded by a majority vote. On the off chance that an opposition government would want to do something meaningful, say add an "equality" clause to the Nation State Law, it would need 61 – that's an example of an entrenched law that can't be changed without a majority. And there are examples about why the Knesset makeup matters that are not hypothetical.


A matter of substance
Strong, absolute majority votes that are effectively bipartisan – uniting coalition and opposition – make a powerful symbolic statement to society about commitment to certain laws. Here are some examples from the outgoing Knesset:
In March this year, an absolute majority of 62 MKs voted for the death penalty bill, which is tailored in practice to apply exclusively to Arabs – some opposition members supported it too.. the High Court is currently reviewing petitions against the law.
Then in May, 93 lawmakers voted for the special military tribunal to try Palestinians terrorists who took part in the October 7 attack; this would operate under martial law in Israel, which allows for the death penalty – unrelated to the previous law. The coalition holds 68 seats (after Gideon Sa'ar rejoined the government in late 2024 and brought four seats with him); meaning that the law garnered 25 additional votes, all from the Zionist opposition parties.


In 2024, 68 members (when the coalition held only 64) voted for a declaration that the "Knesset of Israel firmly opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state. ...The establishment of a Palestinian state in the heart of the Land of Israel would pose an existential danger to the State of Israel and its citizens." This wasn't a law, but its importance can't be overstated. The motion received wide domestic and global coverage. It boosts Netanyahu's justification for his iron-clad rejection of a Palestinian state, since he can say it's a cross-camp political position (he has long demonstrated that for him, "Israelis" means Jewish Israelis).
The statement itself also articulates how Israelis view the country. Very few Israeli Jews would describe Israel as a sovereign country holding occupied territories that will either be annexed or split off into two states. The Knesset declaration is far closer to how Israeli Jews see it: "Israel" means the whole of British Mandatory Palestine, as it appears in all public iconography and official maps, and Palestinians are trying to snatch away "the heart" of that country.
What we know
Now that we know why it matters, how will the next Knesset look?
One more caveat first. Predictions are always a gamble, and this one is too. But it's far more reasonable to predict the Knesset outcome, rather than the makeup of the future government. The next coalition is unpredictable precisely because the voters have been so stable (so far) for the last two years. Anti-Netanyahu parties (or those perceived as likely to support today's opposition bloc) do have a majority, but most of those have adopted a self-imposed ethnic boycott against Arab parties. On Saturday, even Gadi Eisenkot edged closer to joining the boycott.


So unless there's a late-stage surge for Netanyahu's allies, it's likely that six men, not just 7 million voters, will determined the next government: the leaders of Together, Yashar, Yisrael Beiteinu, the Democrats, the Reservists-Economy party (if it crosses the threshold) and United Arab List.
By contrast, following a general stabilization of the parties on the electoral map over the last few months, and after the lists were finalized this month, party votes are now shifting only minimally. Most parties can be pretty clearly categorized as right, centrist or left-wing based on their self-description, their leaders, policies or voting records, and what we know about how Israelis see them.
By that measure, the right-wing parties include all those in the current coalition, Ofer Winter's Amcha Yisrael, Together (because it's led by Naftali Bennett) and Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu (because, well, Lieberman, who advocated for the death penalty years before any of these newcomers). The Reservists-Economists should be categorized as right-wing (or moderate right, in Israeli terms) because of its founder Yoaz Hendel, and from the positions of what little data I've seen on their voters.
And now, the expected results.
Adding up last week's average for each of these parties in all polls just last week, the total reaches 75.4 seats for right-wing parties, compared to 70 in today's Knesset (that includes Lieberman). But that average excludes the two right-leaning pollsters for Channel 14 and for i24 News, whose findings represent outliers compared to half a dozen other survey companies, on certain measures.
But last week's average for those same right-wing parties in the additional two pollsters' results is just slightly higher, at 76.5 seats. That's because Channel 14, at least, is actually mainly pro-Netanyahu, whose party and coalition win hands down in the surveys it commissions. On the heavy right-wing party majority, all polls agree.
What will this mean for the laws and character of Israel?
Once again, it's clear that the majority in Knesset will likely vote against any laws or declarations that dare to suggest diplomacy or agreements with the Palestinians, for a start. Relinquishing sovereign land must happen with a supermajority in Knesset or an absolute majority and a referendum, by law; something a right-wing Knesset will never provide (don't worry – it probably won't be discussed). What about the other towering legislative issue pending – such as the fate of the judicial reform? This issue splits the right somewhat, so it's not totally clear. Amending the Basic Law to finally guarantee equality to all citizens by law? I'm betting no.
For more examples, look no further than the outgoing Knesset, which had 70 right-wing seats. Now imagine worse.



















