Ynet News (English), on Targeting

6.0out of 10Serious

Netanyahu's election lead leaves rivals weighing unity government

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.1 finding

The leaders of the anti-Netanyahu "change bloc" could hardly have imagined, just minutes after television exit polls were released, that the projected Knesset seat distribution would turn against them. Instead of leading Netanyahu's bloc, they found themselves trailing it.

The emerging distribution of Knesset seats has left them in a particularly difficult political position. Not only has Likud emerged as the largest party in the Knesset, but the bloc led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is also the largest, of Gadi Eisenkot, Naftali Bennett, Yair Golan and Avigdor Liberman.

The optimistic statements issued by some change bloc leaders after the exit polls were released, along with Yashar! Chairman Gadi Eisenkot's premature "victory speech," only added to the embarrassment of a camp that had sensed a political upset was within reach.

But the preelection polls, and to a large extent the exit polls as well, demonstrated once again that the gap between projections and actual results can be deceptive to the point of cruelty.

The leaders of the change bloc, with the exception of Yair Golan, opted for a conspicuous silence Wednesday morning. They had not even scheduled a meeting or phone call to coordinate their next steps.

The figure who stepped into the vacuum was none other than the bloc's most outspoken left-wing leader, Democrats chairman Yair Golan. He publicly urged his political partners to reconsider their strategy: Count Ra'am and the Joint List, , as part of the bloc and declare, "We are the largest bloc."

Golan wrote on X: "Netanyahu has lost. I know how to count to 120 — 65 is more than 55. That's how Israeli democracy works. Period. The reality before us must teach us one resounding lesson: We have no future here unless we stop being afraid. And unless we put an end to racism. We can no longer accept Netanyahu's racist distinction between Jewish votes and Arab votes."

Golan proposed forming a government with both Arab parties: "The change bloc has a Zionist majority: 49 to 39. The change bloc has an Israeli majority: 65 to 55. We have a majority. We have a responsibility. And we have an opportunity to form a government of change in partnership with Israel's Arab citizens. A government that will serve all Israeli citizens."

Golan's appeal fell on deaf ears. None of the other leaders in the change bloc intends to . In any case, such a move has no realistic chance of succeeding.

If it were possible to form a government with Ra'am alone to bring the bloc to 61 seats, it would be an entirely different story. In that scenario, Eisenkot, Bennett and Liberman might have been willing to swallow the bitter pill if the price were removing Netanyahu from the Prime Minister's Office.

The parties making up the change bloc may have just one option left: forming a national unity government.

Whether such a government would include a rotation agreement for the premiership remains unclear and depends on the final election results. But the move could fracture the bloc and force its leaders to break the campaign promise they all made: "We will not sit in a government with Netanyahu."

On the other hand, would another election be preferable if the change bloc fails once again to alter the balance of seats between the rival camps? What if another election actually hands Netanyahu a 61-seat majority?

In the coming hours and days, the possibility of a unity government will move to the forefront of the political agenda, both for Netanyahu and for the change bloc.

In the end, it may be the least bad card they have left to play.

Read the original article on ynetnews.com (opens in a new tab)
What we found (1)

Ynet reports the Israeli election as a seat-counting problem for the anti-Netanyahu bloc. In its own voice it calls Ra'am and the Joint List only "the Arab parties" and never uses the word Palestinian, although survey evidence shows a majority of Arab citizens of Israel choose a self-description that includes Palestinian. Its quotations, including Golan's, are attributed.

  1. Erases a people's national identity

    Serious

    “as long as the Arab parties remain outside the alliance”

    Why this matters
    In its own voice Ynet describes the parties whose seats decide the election arithmetic only as "the Arab parties".
    The impression it gives
    A reader takes these parties, and the citizens who vote for them, to be simply an Arab minority sector within Israel, separate from any wider people.
    The context
    Smooha's 2019 survey of 718 adult Arab citizens of Israel found 61.9% chose a self-description containing Palestinian. This supports acknowledging Palestinian identity in this electorate; it does not assign an identity to every party voter. The article never uses the word Palestinian.

    How we know

    • On the recordIn Sammy Smooha's April-June 2019 survey of 718 adult Arab citizens of Israel, including Druze and Bedouin, 61.9% chose a self-description containing Palestinian. This is historical survey evidence, not a 2026 percentage or proof of any individual's identity. Arab and Palestinian identities can coexist.newscord.org (opens in a new tab)
    • Our analysis“In Sammy Smooha's 2019 survey of 718 adult Arab citizens of Israel, 61.9% chose a description of themselves that included Palestinian.”Palestinian citizens of Israel voted in record numbers

    Show it in the article

    “the two Arab parties”

    Why this matters
    In paraphrasing Golan, Ynet adds its own gloss on Ra'am and the Joint List, defining them for the reader as "the two Arab parties".
    The impression it gives
    A reader who does not know these parties learns them only as Arab parties, the outlet's explanatory label, not as parties led by and representing Palestinian citizens of Israel.
    The context
    The party names are reported as written. The descriptive gloss supplies only an ethnic label, while the cited 2019 survey establishes Palestinian self-identification among a majority of its respondents.

    How we know

    • On the recordIn Sammy Smooha's April-June 2019 survey of 718 adult Arab citizens of Israel, including Druze and Bedouin, 61.9% chose a self-description containing Palestinian. This is historical survey evidence, not a 2026 percentage or proof of any individual's identity. Arab and Palestinian identities can coexist.newscord.org (opens in a new tab)
    • Our analysis“61.9% chose a description of themselves that included Palestinian.”Palestinian citizens of Israel voted in record numbers

    Show it in the article

    “form a government or coalition with both Arab parties”

    Why this matters
    Ynet repeats the Arab-only label when it reports that no other bloc leader will govern with these parties.
    The impression it gives
    The reader comes away seeing the refusal as a matter of excluding an Arab sector, with no sense that the excluded representatives speak for Palestinian citizens.
    The context
    The refusal concerns the elected parties of Palestinian citizens of Israel. Golan's own quoted words in S22 refer to "Israel's Arab citizens", which is his choice of words to report. Ynet's own voice never names their national identity anywhere in the piece.

    How we know

    • On the recordIn Sammy Smooha's April-June 2019 survey of 718 adult Arab citizens of Israel, including Druze and Bedouin, 61.9% chose a self-description containing Palestinian. This is historical survey evidence, not a 2026 percentage or proof of any individual's identity. Arab and Palestinian identities can coexist.newscord.org (opens in a new tab)
    • Elsewhere in the article“in partnership with Israel's Arab citizens”

    Show it in the article

How other outlets reported it

Our analysisPalestinian citizens of Israel voted in record numbers

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Ynet News (English)

Everything we scored from Ynet News (English)

See how 590 outlets covered this story