Feed aggregator

The leader of Israel’s Joint Arab List declared Wednesday that his party is prepared to help remove Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu from power, as senior Arab lawmakers confirmed that discussions are already underway with opposition parties about establishing an alternative government following Tuesday’s inconclusive Knesset election.

Yousef Jabareen, chairman of the Joint List, said his party is ready to cooperate with the political bloc seeking to replace Netanyahu, arguing that the election results have created an opportunity for a new government based on cooperation between Jewish and Arab parties.

“We are ready and prepared to pave the way for the removal of the Netanyahu government,” Jabareen declared.

“Against a government of bloodshed, against politics of supremacy, racism and exclusion, we offer a completely different alternative,” he said.

Jabareen emphasized that any meaningful political change must include Arab representation and equal participation in the country’s political leadership.

“Change comes through Jewish-Arab partnership, a genuine and equal partnership. Nothing less and nothing more,” he said.

His remarks came as the latest election results showed the Joint Arab List winning 12 seats and Ra’am securing another seven, giving the Arab parties a combined 19 seats in the 120-member Knesset.

With Netanyahu’s right-wing and religious bloc holding 53 seats and the principal opposition bloc standing at 48, the Arab parties could become central to any effort to establish a government without Netanyahu.

Neither political camp currently possesses the 61 seats required to form a government, and approximately 600,000 double-envelope ballots remain to be counted.

The emerging political arithmetic has prompted renewed discussion about whether opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot could establish a government with parliamentary support from Arab lawmakers, even if those parties do not formally join the coalition.

Joint List MK Ahmad Tibi confirmed Wednesday that contacts are already taking place between his party and members of the opposition bloc.

Speaking in an interview with Esti Perez Ben-Ami on Kan Reshet Bet radio, Tibi said the Joint List is actively seeking to help replace Netanyahu and is prepared to consider different political arrangements to achieve that objective.

“The Joint List wants to assist, help and replace this government and pave the way for an alternative government, and therefore we are extending a hand to the change bloc,” Tibi said.

“I hope the change bloc will have enough courage to take advantage of the clear numbers. They have a partner for this. We are brave enough. I hope they will be equally brave.”

Tibi made clear that the Joint List is not insisting on receiving ministerial positions or becoming a formal member of the next government.

“It is likely that we will not be an organic part of this government. There are various other arrangements. We are open to dialogue,” he said.

Such an arrangement could involve Arab lawmakers supporting an opposition-led government from outside the coalition, allowing it to obtain the parliamentary backing necessary to take office without formally including the Joint List in the cabinet.

Tibi said his party would seek commitments on issues affecting Arab communities, including violent crime, home demolitions, infrastructure and what he described as incitement against Arab citizens.

He also addressed the possibility of recommending an opposition candidate to President Isaac Herzog during the consultations that will follow the certification of the election results.

Tibi recalled that the Joint List had previously recommended Benny Gantz for prime minister, only to see Gantz subsequently enter a government with Netanyahu.

“But he went and joined Netanyahu,” Tibi said, referring to Gantz’s earlier decision.

Tibi also announced that Joint List lawmakers would vote for the opposition’s candidate for Knesset speaker in an effort to replace the current speaker.

The comments suggested that the Joint List is prepared to take concrete parliamentary steps against Netanyahu even before a new governing coalition is established.

However, Tibi’s interview also highlighted the substantial political and ideological obstacles facing any attempt to build a government dependent on Arab-party support.

During the interview, Tibi refused to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization, despite being directly asked whether the group should be designated as such and destroyed.

“I don’t want to answer those questions,” Tibi responded.

He criticized what he described as repeated demands that Arab lawmakers condemn Palestinian organizations, arguing that such questions were unfairly directed at Arab representatives.

Tibi maintained that he had already condemned the atrocities committed against Israeli communities near Gaza during the October 7 attacks.

“You want us to call all the Palestinian factions — Fatah, the Popular Front, the Democratic Front, the Communist Party and Hamas — terrorist organizations, so that the entire Palestinian people will be a terrorist organization,” he said.

His refusal to explicitly identify Hamas as a terrorist organization could complicate efforts to secure the cooperation of Jewish opposition parties, particularly those whose leaders have insisted that any future government must maintain a firm position against Hamas and other terrorist groups.

Meanwhile, Sami Abu Shehadeh, chairman of Balad, outlined additional conditions for cooperation with Eisenkot in an interview with the Qatari television network Al-Araby.

Abu Shehadeh, who withdrew from the Knesset race following developments in Supreme Court proceedings concerning his disqualification, said Eisenkot must first change his approach toward Arab political parties.

“First of all, he needs to stop the incitement against us and stop the incitement against the legitimacy of the Arab parties,” Abu Shehadeh said.

“We want a reasonable Israeli partner who conducts a discourse on human rights in an acceptable manner, who will not treat us in a condescending or unequal way.”

Abu Shehadeh accused Israeli political leaders of continuing to attack Arab parties even after the election results demonstrated their growing parliamentary strength.

“Since yesterday, all we have been hearing is incitement in various forms,” he said, describing the approach as “political stupidity.”

Nevertheless, he indicated that cooperation remained possible if Eisenkot and other opposition leaders were willing to accept his conditions.

“If there is a partner for peace, for fighting racism, for providing equality, freedom and justice for both peoples, he will discover that we are his political partner,” Abu Shehadeh said.

Abu Shehadeh argued that Netanyahu had effectively lost the election, pointing to the decline in the number of seats held by the prime minister’s political bloc.

Referring to an earlier stage of the vote count, he said Netanyahu’s camp had fallen from 68 seats to 54. Subsequent results placed the bloc at 53 seats.

“If we were in a normal, democratic, non-racist country, the campaign would have ended here,” Abu Shehadeh said.

He contended that Eisenkot already possesses the parliamentary numbers necessary to establish a government, provided he is willing to cooperate with Arab lawmakers.

According to Abu Shehadeh, what prevents Eisenkot from assembling such a coalition is “his racism.”

He also argued that the Joint Arab List had achieved the strongest electoral performance relative to its own voting population.

The statements from Jabareen, Tibi and Abu Shehadeh reflect a coordinated effort by senior Arab political figures to establish themselves as potential partners in the formation of Israel’s next government.

Their positions also expose the difficulties facing Eisenkot and other opposition leaders, who must decide whether they are prepared to rely on Arab lawmakers to obtain a parliamentary majority.

A government dependent on outside support from the Joint List would likely face significant pressure over security policy, the conflict with Hamas, military operations in Gaza and the broader Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

The issue is especially sensitive given Tibi’s refusal to label Hamas a terrorist organization and the demands being made by Arab political leaders for changes in the way Israel’s government approaches Arab political representation.

Netanyahu and his allies have repeatedly opposed the establishment of a government dependent on Arab parties, arguing that such an arrangement would undermine Israel’s security and produce an unstable governing coalition.

Opposition leaders, meanwhile, have not yet reached a common position on whether Arab-party support would be acceptable.

The situation is further complicated by the presence of parties within the opposition bloc that hold sharply different positions on security, economic policy, religion and the relationship between Israel’s Jewish and Arab populations.

The final election results could also alter the calculations. Although all regular polling stations have been counted, hundreds of thousands of special ballots remain outstanding, and their inclusion could change the distribution of Knesset seats.

The Joint List’s 12 seats and Ra’am’s seven seats currently give Arab lawmakers considerable potential influence, but that influence will depend on whether the opposition is willing and able to translate their parliamentary support into a governing arrangement.

President Herzog has already appealed to political leaders to approach coalition negotiations with an open mind and do everything possible to prevent Israel from returning to the polls.

The president will eventually consult with the elected parties before deciding which lawmaker should receive the mandate to attempt to form a government.

Those consultations could become particularly consequential if neither Netanyahu nor Eisenkot emerges with a clear majority.

For now, the Joint Arab List is signaling that it is prepared to participate in efforts to end Netanyahu’s tenure, whether through direct coalition participation, outside parliamentary support or cooperation on key Knesset votes.

But the statements by its senior representatives have also made clear that such cooperation would come with political conditions, while Tibi’s refusal to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organization has introduced another potential obstacle to any agreement.

As Israel awaits the final election results, the question is no longer simply which political bloc won the most seats, but whether parties with fundamentally different positions can agree on a governing arrangement capable of commanding a Knesset majority.

The two breakaway chareidi parties that entered Israel’s national election promising to challenge the established chareidi political leadership suffered crushing defeats at the ballot box, receiving fewer than 18,100 votes combined in Wednesday’s partial count, despite months of campaigning and claims that they represented widespread dissatisfaction within the chareidi community.

According to election figures reported Wednesday afternoon, Moti Leitner’s Chareidi Public Party received just 8,748 votes, representing approximately 0.20 percent of the valid ballots counted, while the Tzeva Shachor party, which campaigned under the banner of protecting the Torah world, received 9,308 votes, or approximately 0.21 percent.

Together, the two parties attracted 18,056 votes, roughly half the number of votes ordinarily required to secure a single Knesset seat, and nowhere near the 3.25 percent electoral threshold required for parliamentary representation.

The figures, based on a partial count of approximately 77 percent of the vote, represent a major setback for the independent chareidi factions that sought to capitalize on frustration over the military draft controversy and dissatisfaction with the established chareidi parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism.

The results also emerged amid a broader electoral phenomenon in which more than 200,000 votes were cast for parties that appeared unlikely to enter the Knesset, potentially affecting the distribution of seats in an election that has left neither Prime Minister Binyomin Netanyahu’s bloc nor the opposition with a governing majority.

The campaign by the breakaway chareidi parties had attracted considerable attention in the weeks leading up to Tuesday’s election, particularly because of the continuing dispute over legislation governing the military service of yeshiva bochurim.

Leitner and his Chareidi Public Party presented themselves as an alternative to the established chareidi political establishment, seeking to appeal to voters who believed their representatives had failed to adequately address the draft crisis and other concerns.

Tzeva Shachor, whose full name translates as Black Color — Defender of the Torah World, likewise sought to attract voters dissatisfied with the response of the traditional chareidi parties to the threat of military conscription.

Both parties argued that they represented a constituency whose concerns were not being sufficiently addressed by the existing political leadership.

However, the campaigns faced strong opposition from leading Gedolei Yisroel, who called upon the chareidi public to support the established parties and warned against dividing the chareidi vote.

Senior rabbonim expressed deep concern over the decision to establish competing political lists at a time when the chareidi community was confronting major challenges involving the status of yeshiva students, government funding and the preservation of Torah institutions.

The election results suggest that the overwhelming majority of chareidi voters who participated in the election continued to support the established parties rather than the new alternatives.

The numbers were particularly disappointing for Leitner, whose party had sought to position itself as a significant political force capable of challenging the existing chareidi representation in the Knesset.

With only 8,748 votes in the afternoon tally, the Chareidi Public Party remained far below even the approximate number needed for a single parliamentary seat, let alone the threshold for entering the Knesset.

The party’s showing in Bnei Brak, one of Israel’s largest chareidi population centers, was also notably weak.

Earlier figures reported after most of the city’s polling stations had been counted showed Leitner’s party receiving just 509 votes in Bnei Brak.

Other parties outside the traditional chareidi political establishment, including Likud and Otzma Yehudit, attracted more support in the city than Leitner’s list.

The results illustrate the difficulty of translating dissatisfaction with political representatives into votes for a new party, particularly in a community where electoral participation is heavily influenced by the guidance of rabbinic leadership.

Tzeva Shachor fared only slightly better nationally, with 9,308 votes in the afternoon count.

Despite its limited electoral showing, the party issued a statement Wednesday claiming that its campaign had achieved a significant political impact.

Tzeva Shachor argued that the decline in support for the established chareidi parties demonstrated that large numbers of voters had chosen to stay home rather than vote for Shas or United Torah Judaism.

The party claimed that between three and four Knesset seats’ worth of potential chareidi voters had withheld their support from the established parties.

According to its statement, the success of its campaign should not be measured solely by the number of ballots cast for its own list, but also by its influence on public debate and voter behavior.

The party maintained that it had succeeded in placing the demand for a permanent resolution of the status of yeshiva bochurim at the center of the election campaign.

It also pledged to continue advocating for legislation protecting those engaged in full-time Torah study.

However, the claim that hundreds of thousands of voters abstained specifically because of Tzeva Shachor’s campaign has not been established by the election results. The actual number of votes received by the party remained a small fraction of the support enjoyed by the established chareidi factions.

The poor showing of the two breakaway parties came as Shas and United Torah Judaism themselves faced a difficult election.

According to Wednesday’s developing results, both established chareidi parties were projected to win seven Knesset seats apiece, giving them a combined 14 seats, down from the 18 they held following the previous election.

That decline has raised questions about the reasons for reduced support, including voter turnout, dissatisfaction over the draft issue and the broader political climate.

However, the results do not establish how many voters stayed home because of dissatisfaction with chareidi political leadership, nor do they demonstrate that those voters would otherwise have supported either breakaway party.

The election also produced substantial losses for smaller parties outside the chareidi sector.

According to the partial figures, the Reservists and Economic Party received 117,489 votes, or approximately 2.67 percent of the valid ballots counted.

Although the party attracted considerably more support than the breakaway chareidi lists, it remained below the 3.25 percent threshold required to enter the Knesset.

Amcha Yisrael, associated with former senior military officer Ofer Winter, received 71,647 votes, representing approximately 1.63 percent.

The Noam party, which also contested the election independently, received 6,426 votes.

The two larger unsuccessful lists, the Reservists and Economic Party and Amcha Yisrael, together attracted 189,136 votes in the reported count.

When the votes received by Tzeva Shachor, the Chareidi Public Party and Noam are added, the five parties accounted for 213,618 votes.

Those figures represented approximately 4.85 percent of the 4,401,898 valid votes included in the reported tally.

Using an illustrative calculation of approximately 36,682 votes per Knesset seat, the total amounted to the numerical equivalent of roughly 5.82 seats.

The comparison is striking in an election in which the difference between the major political blocs is relatively narrow.

However, the calculation does not mean that nearly six Knesset seats were literally removed from the parliament or that any particular bloc necessarily lost that number of seats.

Under Israel’s electoral system, parties must receive at least 3.25 percent of the valid national vote to qualify for Knesset representation.

Votes cast for parties that fail to reach that threshold do not contribute to the allocation of seats among qualifying parties.

Instead, the 120 Knesset seats are distributed among the parties that successfully cross the threshold, according to the applicable electoral allocation formula.

As a result, votes cast for unsuccessful parties can indirectly affect the number of seats won by qualifying parties, but the effect depends on the overall distribution of votes and cannot simply be assigned to one political bloc.

The reported total of 213,618 votes also did not include all the minor parties participating in the election.

Another 24 smaller lists, each attracting less than one percent of the vote, were not included in that particular calculation.

Consequently, the total number of votes ultimately cast for parties that fail to enter the Knesset could be higher.

The final figures will depend on the completion of the vote count, including the hundreds of thousands of special double-envelope ballots that remained outstanding Wednesday.

The results have particular significance for Netanyahu’s efforts to form a new government.

With his bloc projected to receive only 53 seats in Wednesday afternoon’s count, the prime minister faces a substantial challenge in assembling the 61-member majority required to govern.

The opposition bloc, projected at 48 seats, also lacks a majority, while the Arab parties hold a combined 19 seats.

In such a closely divided political environment, the performance of parties that failed to cross the electoral threshold could become a subject of intense debate over the strategic decisions made during the campaign.

For the chareidi community, however, the results carry an additional dimension.

The breakaway parties had sought to present themselves as alternatives to the political leadership traditionally supported by Gedolei Yisroel, arguing that the existing representatives were no longer adequately addressing the community’s concerns.

Yet their combined vote total was a small fraction of the hundreds of thousands of ballots cast for Shas and United Torah Judaism.

The results demonstrate that, at least among those who voted for a chareidi party, support for the established lists remained overwhelmingly dominant.

At the same time, the decline in the combined representation of Shas and United Torah Judaism indicates that the established parties will have to confront questions about their own electoral performance and the political challenges facing the chareidi community.

The election results remain provisional, and the final count could alter the vote totals and parliamentary seat allocations.

But one conclusion from the partial results is already clear: neither Leitner’s Chareidi Public Party nor Tzeva Shachor came remotely close to achieving the parliamentary breakthrough its supporters had sought.

Despite the publicity, political controversy and expectations surrounding their campaigns, the two parties together received fewer than 18,100 votes in the reported count, leaving them without representation in the Knesset and raising serious questions about the electoral appeal of their challenge to the established chareidi leadership.

{Matzav.com}

Israel’s political future remained deeply uncertain Wednesday afternoon after the completion of the count from all regular polling stations showed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s right-wing and religious bloc winning just 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, eight short of the majority needed to form a government, while the opposition bloc stood at 48 seats and the Arab parties secured a combined 19 seats.

The latest results, released at 2:23 p.m. Israel time, marked another shift in the electoral picture following Tuesday’s national election, with Netanyahu’s bloc losing ground compared with earlier projections and the Arab parties emerging with an unusually strong showing that could make them central to efforts to establish an alternative government.

Although all regular polling stations have been counted, approximately 600,000 votes cast through special double-envelope ballots remain outstanding, meaning the final distribution of Knesset seats could still change.

The outstanding ballots include votes cast by soldiers and other eligible voters whose ballots are processed separately from those at ordinary polling stations.

According to the latest figures, approximately 85.6 percent of all votes have been counted, with an additional 454,190 votes incorporated into the tally in the most recent update.

Netanyahu’s Likud remains the largest party in the Knesset, with 26 seats, a decline of one seat from the previous count.

The Yashar party, headed by former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot, stands at 21 seats, also down one seat from the previous update.

The Joint Arab List has risen to 12 seats, gaining one seat as the count progressed, while the Beyachad party also holds 12 seats.

The Democrats have eight seats, while Yisrael Beiteinu, Ra’am, United Torah Judaism, Otzma Yehudit and Shas each hold seven seats.

The Religious Zionism–Zehut alliance, led by Bezalel Smotrich, has six seats.

Ra’am gained an additional seat in the latest count, bringing the combined strength of the Joint Arab List and Ra’am to 19 seats, an exceptionally strong result for the Arab political parties.

The results present Netanyahu with a formidable challenge in his effort to remain prime minister. Even with the support of Likud, Shas, United Torah Judaism, Otzma Yehudit and Religious Zionism–Zehut, his bloc currently controls only 53 seats, far below the 61 required to establish a governing coalition.

The opposition bloc, meanwhile, has 48 seats, meaning it, too, cannot form a government without securing support from parties outside its existing alliance.

The combined 19 seats held by the Arab parties could therefore play a decisive role in determining whether Netanyahu remains in office or whether an alternative government can be established.

For the chareidi parties, the election appears to have produced a significant setback. Shas and United Torah Judaism currently hold seven seats apiece, giving them a combined 14 seats, compared with 18 in the previous Knesset.

The loss of four seats is particularly consequential given the ongoing battle over military conscription of yeshiva bochurim and the political influence required to secure legislation protecting full-time Torah learners.

Throughout the election campaign, senior Gedolei Yisroel urged voters to support the established chareidi parties, warning that weakened parliamentary representation could make it more difficult to defend the interests of the Torah community.

The election was also marked by the emergence of independent chareidi factions seeking to capitalize on frustration over the draft issue. However, those parties failed to attract sufficient support to approach the electoral threshold.

The Chareidi Public Party, which sought to challenge the established chareidi political leadership, received approximately 10,000 votes according to the latest count, leaving it far short of the 3.25 percent threshold required to enter the Knesset.

Other smaller parties also remained below the threshold. The Reservists and Economic Party stood at 2.63 percent, while Amcha Yisrael had received 1.61 percent.

The final count could still affect the distribution of seats, particularly because the remaining double-envelope ballots are drawn from a different voting population than the ordinary polling stations.

Israel’s Central Elections Committee estimated Wednesday that the number of double-envelope ballots could reach between 650,000 and 700,000, higher than its earlier estimate of approximately 600,000. The count is expected to continue into Thursday.

Historically, these ballots have sometimes shifted seats away from chareidi and Arab parties toward parties drawing stronger support among soldiers and other voters casting special ballots. That pattern does not guarantee the same outcome this year, but it means Wednesday’s seat allocations cannot yet be considered final.

Against the backdrop of the political deadlock, President Isaac Herzog appealed Wednesday for Israel’s political leaders to approach coalition negotiations with flexibility and make every effort to avoid another election.

“One thing must be understood, and I said this even before the elections: everything must be done, certainly after yesterday, to avoid returning to another election,” Herzog said.

“I therefore expect everyone who comes here to come with an open mind.”

Under Israel’s parliamentary system, the president consults with representatives of the parties elected to the Knesset before assigning the task of forming a government to the candidate he believes has the strongest prospect of assembling a coalition.

That candidate ordinarily receives 28 days to form a government, with the possibility of a 14-day extension. If those efforts fail, additional attempts may follow, potentially culminating in another election.

The president’s appeal came as leaders of the Joint Arab List signaled their willingness to help remove Netanyahu from office.

Joint List chairman Yousef Jabareen declared that his party was prepared to cooperate with opposition forces seeking to establish an alternative government.

“We are ready and prepared to pave the way for the removal of the Netanyahu government,” Jabareen said.

“Against a government of bloodshed, against politics of supremacy, racism and exclusion, we offer a completely different alternative.”

Jabareen added that meaningful political change would require cooperation between Jewish and Arab parties.

“Change comes through Jewish-Arab partnership, a genuine and equal partnership. Nothing less and nothing more.”

His remarks followed statements by Joint List MK Ahmad Tibi, who said the party was already engaged in discussions with parties belonging to the opposition bloc.

Tibi indicated that the Joint List could help facilitate the establishment of an alternative government even without formally joining the coalition.

Such an arrangement could involve Arab lawmakers supporting a government from outside the coalition, potentially allowing Eisenkot or another opposition figure to secure parliamentary backing without including Arab parties in the cabinet.

However, significant obstacles remain. Several opposition leaders have previously rejected reliance on Arab parties, while disagreements over security policy, the war in Gaza and the Palestinian issue could complicate any arrangement.

Balad chairman Sami Abu Shehadeh has also placed conditions on cooperation with Eisenkot, including an end to what he described as incitement against Arab political parties.

Netanyahu, meanwhile, has called for the formation of a right-wing government and has opposed establishing a coalition dependent on Arab parties.

The possibility of a national unity government has also entered the political discussion, although deep divisions between Netanyahu and his principal opponents remain a substantial obstacle.

Any negotiations involving the chareidi parties would almost certainly place the military draft issue near the center of discussions.

Shas and United Torah Judaism have repeatedly emphasized the need for legislation addressing the status of yeshiva bochurim, while several opposition parties have demanded expanded military service among the chareidi population.

Those conflicting positions could make coalition negotiations particularly difficult, even if party leaders prove willing to reconsider their previous political alliances.

The latest results also represent a striking development for the Arab parties, whose combined 19 seats would give them a larger parliamentary presence than either of the two established chareidi parties and potentially considerable influence over the formation of the next government.

Nevertheless, parliamentary strength does not automatically translate into coalition participation. The willingness of other parties to cooperate with the Joint List and Ra’am will be a central question in the coming weeks.

For Netanyahu, the challenge is to find eight additional lawmakers willing to support a government under his leadership, or to negotiate a broader political arrangement that would provide a stable majority.

For Eisenkot and the opposition, the challenge is different but equally difficult: converting opposition to Netanyahu into a workable governing coalition among parties with sharply divergent positions on security, religion and the future of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

If neither side succeeds, Israel could face another prolonged period of political uncertainty, with Netanyahu remaining in office as caretaker prime minister while negotiations continue.

The country experienced a similar cycle between 2019 and 2022, when repeated failures to establish stable governments resulted in five national elections in less than four years.

For now, the completion of the regular polling-station count has clarified the political arithmetic without resolving the fundamental question of who will govern Israel.

With Netanyahu’s bloc at 53 seats, the opposition at 48 and the Arab parties holding 19, neither side possesses a majority on its own. The remaining double-envelope ballots could change the distribution of seats, but the larger challenge of assembling a viable coalition will remain.

The final count is expected to provide a clearer picture by Thursday, after which attention will turn increasingly toward President Herzog and the negotiations that will determine whether Israel can establish a new government or face another election.

{Matzav.com}

President Donald Trump claimed Wednesday that his endorsement of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu helped dramatically reverse the Israeli leader’s electoral fortunes, turning what had appeared to be a likely defeat into a closely contested race that could ultimately leave Netanyahu in power.

Speaking to reporters after returning from a campaign rally in Texas, Trump said Netanyahu had performed considerably better than expected in Tuesday’s Knesset election and suggested that his public support had played an important role in the turnaround.

“I heard the poll numbers were wrong… the exit polls; I heard he [Netanyahu] did very well. It was pretty close, but very well. When the endorsement went out, it helped him a lot,” Trump said.

The president acknowledged that the election results were not yet final but pointed to the unexpectedly strong showing by Netanyahu’s Likud party and its right-wing and religious allies.

“It’s a little bit early, but I’m hearing in Israel, top people say, ‘Wow! He did a lot better than people thought.’ It’s looking like maybe a stalemate or a win,” Trump said.

Trump also used his Truth Social account to amplify a statement by Irving C. Schwartz crediting the president’s endorsement with changing the direction of the election.

“When President Trump endorsed Bibi Netanyahu, the whole tide turned, and now, rather than a decisive defeat for a Great Prime Minister, it looks like a big come-from-behind stalemate, or even a WIN for Netanyahu,” the statement read.

“It all took place AFTER the Endorsement by President Trump, who only wants what is good for the Middle East, Israel, and the United States of America!”

The remarks came as official election results showed Netanyahu’s bloc performing substantially better than many preelection surveys had suggested, although neither of Israel’s two principal political camps had secured the parliamentary majority necessary to form a government.

By Wednesday morning, with approximately 66 percent of ballot boxes counted, preliminary results indicated that Netanyahu’s right-wing and religious bloc was on course to receive 56 seats in the 120-member Knesset, compared with 48 for the principal opposition bloc. The predominantly Arab parties were projected to hold another 16 seats.

The figures placed Netanyahu’s bloc five seats short of the 61 required for a governing majority, leaving the country facing potentially complicated coalition negotiations.

Netanyahu’s Likud emerged as the largest individual party, while the opposition alliance led by former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot struggled to establish a clear path to forming an alternative government.

The results represented a notable improvement for Netanyahu compared with several surveys conducted before the election, which had suggested that his coalition would suffer a significant setback.

Trump formally endorsed Netanyahu on October 18, nine days before Israelis went to the polls, describing him as an essential partner in confronting Iran and advancing American interests in the Middle East.

In his endorsement, Trump praised Netanyahu as a “Great Warrior Prime Minister” and warned that replacing him could complicate Washington’s efforts to confront Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.

“If Israel has the wrong Leader, which would be anyone other than Bibi, America will have to do this work ourselves, and I am not inclined to do so,” Trump declared at the time.

The president subsequently renewed his endorsement as the election approached, urging Israeli voters to support Netanyahu and emphasizing the importance of maintaining the partnership between the two leaders.

“When you go to the Polls please remember that Bibi has been an outstanding Warrior Prime Minister!” Trump wrote in a subsequent message.

“Vote for Bibi Netanyahu for Prime Minister, we have to finish the job that we started!” he added.

Netanyahu enthusiastically embraced the endorsements, incorporating Trump’s support into his final campaign messaging and presenting his close relationship with the American president as a major asset for Israel.

The prime minister repeatedly argued that his partnership with Trump was essential to confronting Iran, expanding diplomatic relations with Arab countries and preserving Israel’s security.

In one campaign video, Netanyahu directly addressed the American president, saying that the two leaders still had unfinished business concerning Iran.

“Donald, we have a job to finish [in Iran]… and we’ll finish it together. We’ll finish it, and no one else will do it,” Netanyahu declared.

The issue of Iran figured prominently in the closing days of the election campaign, with Netanyahu portraying his relationship with Trump as particularly important amid speculation about possible renewed military action against Tehran.

The Israeli prime minister also emphasized the Abraham Accords and the prospect of additional normalization agreements with Arab countries as achievements that could be expanded through continued cooperation with Washington.

Trump’s intervention was unusually direct for an American president in the final stages of a foreign election campaign, particularly given the close contest between Netanyahu and his political opponents.

The endorsement also came after Trump had initially declined to commit himself publicly to Netanyahu’s reelection effort.

During an earlier interview, Trump said he had not made a decision about endorsing a candidate and expressed general skepticism about trusting politicians.

His subsequent decision to throw his support behind Netanyahu gave the Israeli prime minister an opportunity to emphasize the strength of his relationship with the White House at a time when polls suggested his political future was uncertain.

Whether the endorsement actually changed voters’ decisions remains unclear. The improvement in Netanyahu’s electoral performance coincided with Trump’s intervention, but the available election results do not establish how much of the shift, if any, was caused by the American president’s support.

The election itself was dominated by several major issues, including Israel’s security situation, the continuing confrontation with Iran, the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas attacks, the military draft controversy and widespread dissatisfaction with the country’s political leadership.

For Netanyahu, the results provided an opportunity to claim that his political opponents had failed to deliver the decisive defeat they had anticipated.

Addressing supporters at Likud headquarters in Yerushalayim early Wednesday, Netanyahu called for the establishment of a strong right-wing government and emphasized the importance of continuing Israel’s strategic cooperation with the United States.

“Israel faces a singular historical opportunity, together with our partner President Trump, to remove the existential threat of Iran once and for all. But ulterior motives must not divert us from this sacred mission,” Netanyahu said.

Eisenkot, meanwhile, maintained that the election reflected public opposition to Netanyahu’s continued leadership and called on the prime minister to leave political office.

Neither leader had secured an outright majority, and the final allocation of Knesset seats remained subject to the completion of the vote count, including ballots cast by soldiers and other voters whose ballots are counted separately.

The unusually high turnout, reported at 77.7 percent, added another element of uncertainty to the election, with the final distribution of seats potentially affected by parties hovering near the electoral threshold.

For Trump, however, the preliminary results were already sufficient to claim that his intervention had helped Netanyahu avoid a much more damaging outcome.

The president characterized the apparent deadlock as a significant political achievement for Netanyahu, arguing that even a tie could represent a favorable result under the circumstances.

“You know, it’s pretty close, which was very well. Because I think when the endorsement went out, it helped him a lot,” Trump said.

“It might be winning or tie. The tie is sort of considered a win in that case because it’s a big chess match.”

{Matzav.com}

Israel’s election has produced a political paradox that could determine the country’s future: A party can win more votes than any of its rivals, emerge with the largest delegation in the Knesset, and still find itself unable to form a government.

That is the challenge confronting Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu following Tuesday’s national election, as preliminary results indicate that Likud remains the largest individual party but Netanyahu’s traditional political allies have failed to secure the 61 seats necessary for a parliamentary majority.

His principal challenger, Gadi Eisenkot, faces a similar difficulty. Although the parties opposing Netanyahu collectively command substantial support, their ideological differences could prevent them from establishing a workable coalition.

The result is a political stalemate in which the question of who received the most votes may ultimately matter less than which candidate can persuade enough Knesset members to support a government.

Unlike the United States, where voters separately elect a president, Israel operates under a parliamentary system in which citizens vote for political parties rather than directly choosing a prime minister.

The country’s 120 Knesset seats are distributed among qualifying parties according to their share of the national vote.

No single party has ever won an outright majority of 61 seats in a Knesset election, meaning that Israeli governments have traditionally depended on coalitions involving multiple political factions.

The leader of the largest party is often in a strong position to form a government, but there is no automatic guarantee that he will become prime minister.

Instead, the decisive factor is whether a candidate can assemble the parliamentary support necessary to establish and sustain a governing coalition.

That distinction has become particularly important following Tuesday’s election.

Preliminary returns showed Likud winning approximately 27 seats, making it the largest individual faction in the next Knesset.

Eisenkot’s Yashar party was projected to receive approximately 22 seats, while Naftali Bennett’s Beyachad party was expected to secure around 12.

Other significant factions included the Democrats, Yisrael Beytenu, Otzma Yehudit, Shas, United Torah Judaism, and the Arab parties.

But the individual party totals tell only part of the story.

The central issue is how those parties divide into potential governing alliances.

Netanyahu’s traditional bloc includes Likud, Shas, United Torah Judaism, Otzma Yehudit, and Religious Zionism.

Those parties have generally supported his leadership and cooperated in previous coalition arrangements, although disagreements over military conscription and other issues have created considerable tensions.

Based on one partial count, the bloc was projected to receive approximately 54 seats, leaving it seven short of the parliamentary majority needed to form a government.

That shortfall means Netanyahu would have to persuade at least one additional party, or enough individual Knesset members, to support his government.

Finding those votes could prove exceptionally difficult.

Several parties outside Netanyahu’s traditional alliance campaigned explicitly on replacing him, and their leaders have repeatedly ruled out joining a government under his leadership.

Even parties that share some of Likud’s positions on security or economic policy may be unwilling to enter a coalition headed by Netanyahu.

Eisenkot faces a different version of the same problem.

The parties generally associated with the opposition include his own Yashar faction, Bennett’s Beyachad, Yair Golan’s Democrats, and Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beytenu.

Together, they represent a substantial parliamentary force, but they also differ sharply over religion and state, military conscription, security policy, and the role of the Chareidi parties.

The opposition’s difficulty becomes particularly apparent when the Arab parties are included in the calculation.

Preliminary results indicated that the Joint Arab List and Ra’am could together hold a significant number of seats, potentially making them indispensable to an alternative coalition.

Yet several parties opposed to Netanyahu have also expressed strong objections to relying on Arab factions to establish a government.

Bennett and Lieberman, in particular, have opposed coalition arrangements dependent on Arab political parties.

Consequently, even if the combined number of opposition and Arab-party seats exceeds 61, that does not necessarily mean Eisenkot can form a government.

A numerical majority on paper is not the same as a political agreement.

The problem is further complicated by the Chareidi parties.

Shas and United Torah Judaism have traditionally been among Netanyahu’s most reliable coalition partners, but the continuing controversy over the conscription of yeshiva bochurim has strained relations between the Chareidi leadership and Likud.

United Torah Judaism has indicated that it will demand legislation protecting full-time yeshiva students from military service before agreeing to ordinary coalition cooperation.

That demand could become a significant obstacle for any prospective prime minister, particularly one seeking to include parties that favor expanded Chareidi military recruitment.

Eisenkot, a former IDF chief of staff, has supported increasing military participation among the Chareidi population.

Bennett and Lieberman have also advocated policies aimed at changing existing conscription arrangements.

Any coalition involving those parties and United Torah Judaism would therefore have to overcome fundamental disagreements over one of the most contentious issues in Israeli politics.

Shas chairman Aryeh Deri could also find himself in an influential position if the final results leave both major blocs short of a majority.

Although Shas has been closely aligned with Netanyahu, the party’s parliamentary support could become important in negotiations involving alternative political arrangements.

There is, however, no established agreement indicating that Shas intends to abandon its traditional alliance.

The process of determining who will form the next government begins after the final election results are established.

President Isaac Herzog will consult with representatives of the parties elected to the Knesset and ask them to recommend a candidate for prime minister.

The president is not legally required to select the leader of the largest party or even the candidate receiving the greatest number of recommendations.

His responsibility is to choose the Knesset member he believes has the strongest prospect of successfully forming a government.

That decision can produce an outcome that differs from the apparent winner of the election.

A candidate whose party finished second could receive the mandate if he demonstrates a more realistic path to assembling a parliamentary majority.

Once the president assigns the task, the designated candidate ordinarily has 28 days to form a government.

The president may grant an extension of up to 14 additional days.

If the candidate fails, the president may turn to another Knesset member, setting off another round of negotiations.

If those efforts also fail, additional parliamentary procedures can follow, potentially leading to another election.

Israel has experienced this scenario repeatedly.

Between April 2019 and November 2022, the country held five national elections as competing political blocs struggled to establish stable governing majorities.

The period demonstrated that even a relatively strong electoral performance does not necessarily translate into the ability to govern.

In April 2019, Likud and Blue and White each won 35 seats, but Netanyahu was unable to assemble a coalition. Rather than allow another candidate an opportunity to form a government, the Knesset voted to dissolve itself, sending the country back to the polls.

A similar stalemate followed the September 2019 election, when neither Netanyahu nor Blue and White leader Benny Gantz could form a government.

The political deadlock eventually produced a unity government in 2020, but that arrangement collapsed, leading to another election.

In 2021, Netanyahu’s opponents succeeded in assembling a coalition led by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, even though Bennett’s Yamina party had won only seven seats.

Bennett became prime minister despite leading a faction considerably smaller than Likud, demonstrating that the ability to assemble a coalition can outweigh the number of seats won by an individual party.

The government brought together parties spanning much of Israel’s political spectrum, including right-wing, centrist, left-wing, and Arab factions.

Its formation illustrated the flexibility of Israel’s parliamentary system, but its eventual collapse also demonstrated the difficulty of maintaining a coalition among parties with sharply conflicting political priorities.

Those experiences provide important context for the current election.

Netanyahu may emerge with the largest party and still be unable to govern.

Eisenkot may command broad opposition support and still fail to persuade enough parties to cooperate.

A unity government could theoretically provide a solution, but such an arrangement would require political rivals to overcome major disagreements concerning leadership, government policy, and the distribution of authority.

A rotation agreement, under which two leaders serve as prime minister for designated periods, is another possible arrangement, although previous Israeli experiences have shown that such agreements can be difficult to maintain.

The final vote count could also change the calculations.

Hundreds of thousands of double-envelope ballots, including those cast by soldiers and other eligible voters outside their assigned polling stations, remained to be processed Wednesday.

Those ballots could affect the distribution of seats among qualifying parties and potentially alter the strength of the competing political blocs.

Parties close to the 3.25 percent electoral threshold were also awaiting the final results, since the entry of an additional party into the Knesset could change the allocation of mandates.

Until the count is completed, the precise parliamentary arithmetic remains uncertain.

Nevertheless, the central political challenge is already apparent.

Israel’s voters have elected a deeply divided Knesset in which the leading parties must negotiate with factions whose support cannot be taken for granted.

For Netanyahu, the challenge is finding a path beyond his traditional right-wing and Chareidi alliance.

For Eisenkot, it is assembling a coalition from parties that oppose Netanyahu but disagree among themselves about some of the country’s most important issues.

For the Chareidi parties, the question is whether their parliamentary representation can be used to secure meaningful protections for yeshiva bochurim and Torah institutions amid the continuing draft controversy.

And for President Herzog, the challenge will be identifying a candidate capable of transforming the election results into a functioning government.

The outcome may not be determined by which party finishes first, which bloc receives the largest combined vote, or which leader delivers the strongest election-night speech.

It will be determined by whether 61 members of the newly elected Knesset can agree to support the same government.

Until that happens, Israel may know who won the most votes without knowing who won the election.

The Israel Defense Forces announced Wednesday that it had eliminated three senior Hamas operatives in separate airstrikes across the Gaza Strip, including two commanders who personally participated in the October 7, 2023, terrorist invasion of southern Israel.

The three terrorists, all commanders in Hamas’s military wing, were killed in operations carried out Sunday and Monday in Khan Younis and Gaza City. According to the IDF, the men had continued directing terrorist activity throughout the war and were recently involved in efforts to rebuild Hamas’s military capabilities and prepare attacks against Israeli soldiers and civilians.

Among those eliminated was Anas Akram Mohammed Hamaida, a commander in Hamas’s elite Nukhba force who participated in the October 7 assault on the IDF’s Sufa military outpost near the Gaza border.

Hamaida was killed Sunday in an Israeli airstrike in the Khan Younis area of southern Gaza.

The Sufa outpost was among the military installations targeted during Hamas’s coordinated invasion on Simchas Torah 5784, when thousands of terrorists breached Israel’s border defenses and attacked military positions and civilian communities throughout the Gaza envelope.

The attack on the outpost formed part of the larger Hamas operation that resulted in approximately 1,200 people being murdered and 251 people being abducted into Gaza.

Israeli soldiers stationed along the border fought intense battles as Hamas terrorists attempted to overrun military bases, seize weapons and capture soldiers.

The IDF identified Hamaida as one of the Nukhba commanders who took part in the assault on Sufa, linking him directly to the October 7 invasion.

A second terrorist eliminated Sunday was Ashraf Mahmoud Yousef Dahlan, a platoon commander in Hamas’s East Jabalia Battalion.

Dahlan was killed in an airstrike in the Gaza City area.

According to the military, Dahlan also participated in the October 7 invasion, crossing into Israeli territory during the Hamas attacks.

The East Jabalia Battalion was part of Hamas’s military infrastructure in northern Gaza, an area that has been the scene of extensive Israeli operations throughout the war.

Dahlan’s elimination marked the removal of another Hamas commander whom the IDF identified as having personally taken part in the massacre.

The third terrorist, Mahmoud Othman Abdullah Alwan, was killed Monday in an Israeli airstrike in the Gaza City area.

Alwan served as a Nukhba commander in Hamas’s West Jabalia Battalion.

Although the military did not identify Alwan as having personally crossed into Israel on October 7, it said he had remained involved in Hamas military operations and efforts to restore the terrorist organization’s fighting capabilities.

The IDF said all three men had been active throughout the war and had continued to participate in Hamas’s operational activities in recent weeks.

According to the military, their activities included advancing plans for attacks against Israeli forces and civilians, as well as helping rebuild Hamas’s military infrastructure following the extensive damage inflicted during Israeli operations in Gaza.

The army said these activities constituted repeated violations of the ceasefire arrangements currently governing the situation in the Gaza Strip.

Israeli officials have maintained that Hamas continues attempting to reorganize its military forces, recruit operatives, restore command structures and prepare additional attacks despite the ceasefire.

The military said the three commanders were targeted from the air in order to eliminate the threats they posed.

The announcement comes amid continuing tensions surrounding the implementation of the Gaza ceasefire, with Israel accusing Hamas of using periods of reduced fighting to rebuild its military capabilities.

Hamas’s Nukhba force, an elite component of the terrorist organization’s military wing, played a central role in planning and executing the October 7 attacks.

Nukhba operatives were among the terrorists who spearheaded the invasion, attacking IDF positions, entering Israeli communities, murdering civilians and soldiers, and abducting hostages into Gaza.

Since the outbreak of the war, Israeli security forces have made the identification and elimination of terrorists involved in the October 7 massacre a central objective of their operations.

The IDF and Shin Bet have conducted numerous operations targeting Hamas commanders, intelligence personnel and other operatives linked to the attacks.

The latest strikes reflect Israel’s continuing effort to target members of Hamas’s command structure who participated in the invasion or remain involved in preparations for further attacks.

The military did not provide additional operational details about the intelligence that led to the identification of the three commanders or the precise circumstances of the strikes.

It also did not report whether other Hamas operatives were killed in the operations.

In its statement Wednesday, the IDF emphasized that Israeli forces under the Southern Command remain deployed in accordance with the existing agreement and are continuing to monitor threats emanating from Gaza.

The army said it would continue taking action to remove threats against Israeli soldiers and civilians, including those arising from Hamas’s efforts to rebuild its military capabilities.

The elimination of Hamaida and Dahlan adds two more names to the list of Hamas terrorists identified by Israeli authorities as participants in the October 7 invasion who have subsequently been killed during the war.

More than three years after the Simchas Torah massacre, the IDF continues to pursue those involved in the attacks while seeking to prevent Hamas from restoring the military infrastructure used to carry them out.

{Matzav.com}

Shas chairman Aryeh Deri departed from the party’s customary election-night celebrations Tuesday without delivering a speech to supporters, as preliminary results pointed to a substantial decline in the Sephardic Chareidi party’s parliamentary strength and raised the possibility that United Torah Judaism could surpass Shas in the popular vote.

The absence of a traditional election-night address drew particular attention because Shas entered the election holding 11 Knesset seats, while the initial projections indicated that the party could emerge with only seven.

For a movement that has spent decades cultivating a powerful electoral organization and presenting itself as the political representative of Sephardic Chareidi Jewry, the results represented a significant setback.

Deri instead communicated through a written statement, thanking the party’s supporters and emphasizing its continued commitment to the principles and institutions it represents.

The subdued response stood in contrast to previous election nights, when Shas leaders celebrated strong performances with supporters, activists, and party officials.

The preliminary results also created an unusual political situation within the Chareidi community.

United Torah Judaism, which won seven seats in the 2022 election, appeared positioned to retain its parliamentary representation. Shas, meanwhile, faced the loss of approximately four seats, substantially narrowing the gap between the two parties.

By Wednesday morning, partial official returns indicated that United Torah Judaism had moved ahead of Shas in the number of votes received, potentially ending the Sephardic party’s longstanding advantage over its Ashkenazic counterpart.

At one stage of the count, UTJ had received 240,648 votes compared with 217,202 for Shas, a difference of 23,446 votes.

Although the remaining ballots could still change the final figures, the preliminary numbers pointed to a notable shift in the relative electoral strength of Israel’s two principal Chareidi parties.

The uncertainty began immediately after the polls closed at 10 p.m. Tuesday.

Israel’s three principal television exit polls offered sharply different assessments of Shas’s performance. Channel 12 projected eight seats for the party, while Channel 13 and Kan 11 each projected only six.

Even the most favorable of those projections represented a decline from the party’s 11-seat showing in 2022.

Rather than hold the planned gathering at the Shira Chadasha hall in the Givat Shaul neighborhood of Yerushalayim, Shas canceled the event. The doors remained closed, and the supporters who had expected an election-night address did not receive one.

At the party’s election headquarters, the scene was similarly unusual. The hall had been prepared for a celebration, complete with lighting and music, but the expected crowd and senior party representatives were absent.

Shortly after midnight, music associated with the Shas campaign could still be heard in the largely empty venue, creating a striking contrast between the preparations for an election-night celebration and the uncertainty surrounding the results.

Deri, who has led Shas through numerous election campaigns and served as one of the most influential figures in Israeli politics for decades, chose not to appear before supporters.

Instead, he released a statement thanking the party’s voters, rabbonim, elected representatives, and campaign activists.

“Thank G-d!” Deri began, before expressing appreciation to the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who had voted for Shas.

He thanked the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah for its efforts on behalf of the party, along with rabbonim from communities throughout the country and the thousands of activists who had worked during the campaign.

Deri also accused the party’s opponents of conducting what he described as an unprecedented campaign of hostility against the movement.

Addressing the conflicting exit polls, Deri urged supporters not to draw conclusions before the official count.

“The exit poll results show large discrepancies, and therefore we will have to wait for the actual results,” he said.

“According to the data in Shas’s possession, the party will achieve a very good result that will reflect the tremendous work done on the ground.”

He concluded with an appeal to party workers who had spent Election Day mobilizing voters.

“Dear activists, you worked hard, and there is a reward for your efforts. Go rest, and tomorrow morning we will wake up to the actual results.”

The decision to avoid a public address was particularly notable because Deri did not use the occasion to reaffirm an explicit commitment to supporting Netanyahu in the next government.

That omission attracted attention amid growing uncertainty over the composition of the next Knesset and the possibility that neither Netanyahu’s traditional right-wing and Chareidi alliance nor the principal opposition parties would command a majority.

There was no indication that Shas had decided to abandon Netanyahu, but the absence of a renewed public commitment left questions about the party’s negotiating position unanswered.

The contrast with United Torah Judaism was evident on election night.

Senior UTJ officials initially remained inside the party’s offices in Bnei Brak, where they reviewed the exit polls and considered the implications of the results.

After an extended period, the party’s leadership emerged to address several dozen supporters.

Yaakov Asher, who has assumed the senior leadership position in Degel HaTorah, appeared alongside veteran MK Moshe Gafni, holding his predecessor’s hand in a public display of continuity.

Although some UTJ activists were disappointed by the exit polls, which initially projected six seats for the party, Asher presented the result as a significant achievement.

“The Torah has won,” Asher told supporters.

“Everyone wrote us off, took bites out of us, and tried to do many things to us, but they did not succeed. This is a great victory for us.”

The subsequent partial count strengthened UTJ’s position, with projections indicating that the party could retain its seven seats.

For Shas, however, the emerging picture was considerably less encouraging.

The party had entered the election following a difficult period marked by the military draft controversy, political tensions within the right-wing bloc, and dissatisfaction among some voters over the handling of issues affecting the Chareidi community.

The conscription crisis, in particular, had placed substantial pressure on the Chareidi political leadership.

The absence of legislation protecting full-time yeshiva students from military service, together with enforcement measures and financial sanctions affecting the yeshiva world, became a central issue throughout the campaign.

Shas and United Torah Judaism both faced demands to demonstrate that their political participation could produce meaningful protections for Torah learners.

Yet the preliminary results suggested that the two parties had experienced markedly different electoral outcomes.

While UTJ appeared capable of maintaining its parliamentary strength, Shas was confronting the possibility of losing more than one-third of its Knesset representation.

That development carries implications beyond the symbolic question of which party receives more votes.

Shas has traditionally exercised considerable influence within Netanyahu’s political alliances, with Deri serving as a key negotiator and political intermediary.

A reduction in the party’s parliamentary strength could affect its bargaining position in coalition negotiations, particularly if Netanyahu cannot assemble a majority without obtaining support from parties outside his traditional camp.

At the same time, the uncertainty surrounding government formation could provide Shas with opportunities to influence the next coalition despite its diminished representation.

The party’s decisions will be shaped by the final election results, its longstanding political relationships, and the guidance of the Moetzes Chachmei HaTorah.

The electoral setback also raises questions about the effectiveness of Shas’s campaign organization.

The party has historically maintained an extensive network of activists, local representatives, and communal institutions capable of mobilizing voters in Chareidi neighborhoods and traditional Sephardic communities.

Its success in the 2022 election, when it won 11 seats, demonstrated the strength of that organization.

The apparent decline in 2026 will likely prompt an examination of voter turnout, changes in political loyalties, and the broader circumstances that affected the party’s performance.

For Deri, who has been identified with Shas for much of its history, the election represents one of the more difficult moments in his political career.

The final results could still alter the party’s seat total, and hundreds of thousands of special ballots remained to be processed Wednesday.

Nevertheless, the decision to cancel the election-night celebration and communicate through a written statement reflected the uncertainty that had overtaken the party as the results emerged.

The scene at Shas headquarters provided a memorable image of the evening: a hall prepared for a celebration, campaign music playing, and the party’s chairman absent from the stage.

Whether the final count softens the setback or confirms a major decline, the election has left Shas confronting important questions about its electoral strength, political strategy, and role in Israel’s next government.

For now, Deri has chosen to wait for the final numbers before delivering his public assessment of what happened.

And in a political movement accustomed to election-night speeches, that silence has become one of the most revealing stories of the election.

United Torah Judaism has declared that it will not join any future Israeli government, support coalition legislation, or accept senior parliamentary positions until a law protecting yeshiva bochurim from military conscription has been fully enacted, setting the stage for a major confrontation over the draft issue following Tuesday’s Knesset election.

The announcement, reported Wednesday morning in the Chareidi newspaper Hamevaser, comes as Israel’s political parties begin preparing for coalition negotiations amid an inconclusive election in which neither Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s right-wing bloc nor the opposition led by Gadi Eisenkot has secured a parliamentary majority.

Under the conditions established in the electoral agreement between Agudas Yisroel and Degel HaTorah, the two factions comprising United Torah Judaism, the party will demand legislation providing a full military exemption for every yeshiva student whose occupation is Torah study, without criminal penalties or financial sanctions.

The agreement also prohibits UTJ representatives from supporting coalition-sponsored legislation until the draft law has passed, except in specific cases authorized by the party’s senior rabbinic leadership.

In addition, the party’s Knesset members will not accept appointments as government ministers, deputy ministers, or chairmen of Knesset committees until the legislation has been enacted.

The demands represent a significant escalation in the Chareidi parties’ approach to coalition negotiations, particularly because UTJ is insisting on the passage of legislation before extending full parliamentary cooperation, rather than accepting assurances that a future government will eventually address the issue.

Party officials say the position reflects the difficult experiences of recent months, during which yeshiva bochurim have faced draft orders, enforcement measures, arrests, and financial sanctions amid the continuing legal battle over their military status.

The Chareidi leadership has repeatedly expressed frustration with political commitments that failed to produce legislation capable of protecting full-time Torah learners.

According to Wednesday’s report, UTJ officials are determined not to repeat that experience, insisting that promises alone will no longer be sufficient.

The party’s position could become one of the central obstacles to forming Israel’s next government.

With the latest partial election results leaving both major political blocs short of the 61 seats required for a Knesset majority, the Chareidi parties could find themselves involved in complicated negotiations over the next coalition.

United Torah Judaism and Shas were each projected to receive approximately six or seven seats as counting continued Wednesday, giving the two parties a combined parliamentary delegation of roughly 12 to 14 members.

Their representation could be significant in a closely divided Knesset, particularly if neither Netanyahu nor Eisenkot can assemble a majority without obtaining support from parties outside their traditional alliances.

But UTJ’s newly reiterated conditions make clear that its participation in any government will depend first and foremost on the resolution of the draft crisis.

The dispute over yeshiva conscription has become one of the most contentious issues in Israeli politics, pitting the Chareidi community’s commitment to preserving full-time Torah study against demands from military officials, opposition politicians, and segments of the Israeli public for expanded military recruitment.

The controversy intensified following the prolonged military conflicts that began after October 7, 2023, as the IDF confronted increased manpower requirements and growing pressure to expand the pool of eligible recruits.

For decades, full-time yeshiva students were generally able to defer military service under arrangements that recognized their continued Torah study.

However, a series of legal challenges and court rulings gradually undermined those arrangements, culminating in the absence of a valid statutory framework authorizing broad exemptions.

In June 2024, Israel’s Supreme Court ruled that without a legal basis for distinguishing between yeshiva students and other eligible citizens, the government could not continue treating the two groups differently for conscription purposes.

The ruling also affected government funding for yeshivos whose students lacked valid military deferments, creating additional financial pressure on Torah institutions.

Since then, the military and government have faced growing legal demands to implement conscription requirements, while Chareidi representatives have sought legislation restoring protections for yeshiva students.

The issue has produced repeated political crises, mass demonstrations, and confrontations surrounding the detention of bochurim accused of failing to comply with military orders.

In July 2026, the Knesset passed legislation intended to prevent the arrest of Chareidi draft evaders, but the High Court of Justice quickly froze its implementation while considering petitions challenging the measure.

Opponents of the law argued that it violated principles of equality and undermined the state’s ability to enforce military service requirements. Chareidi supporters maintained that the measure was necessary to prevent the detention of yeshiva students while the broader legislative dispute remained unresolved.

The court’s intervention left the underlying conscription controversy unsettled and reinforced the determination of Chareidi political leaders to obtain legislation that would withstand judicial scrutiny.

The issue also contributed to tensions within Netanyahu’s outgoing coalition.

Throughout 2026, Shas and United Torah Judaism repeatedly pressed the government to advance a draft law, at times withholding support for coalition legislation in an effort to force progress.

Those confrontations placed Netanyahu in a difficult position, as he sought to retain the support of his Chareidi partners while responding to objections from other coalition members and pressure from the military establishment.

Critics of proposed exemptions argued that the IDF’s continuing manpower requirements made broad exemptions increasingly difficult to justify, particularly while soldiers and reservists were being called upon for extended periods of service.

Chareidi leaders, meanwhile, maintained that the preservation of Torah study was fundamental to the community’s existence and that coercive recruitment measures threatened its religious way of life.

The disagreement extended beyond the question of military service itself to encompass financial penalties, restrictions on government benefits, and the funding of yeshivos and kollelim.

For many Chareidi families, the consequences of the legal uncertainty have therefore been felt not only in the possibility of conscription but also in the financial pressures associated with the government’s enforcement policies.

The arrests of yeshiva bochurim during the months preceding the election further intensified public concern and prompted demonstrations in Chareidi population centers.

The draft controversy also became a major issue during the election campaign, with the established Chareidi parties facing criticism from voters who believed their political representatives had failed to secure adequate protections.

Alternative Chareidi political movements attempted to capitalize on that dissatisfaction, although preliminary results indicated that the established parties retained the overwhelming majority of their traditional electoral support.

The election also brought a significant leadership transition within Degel HaTorah, with veteran MK Moshe Gafni making way for Yaakov Asher in the party’s senior parliamentary leadership.

The transition has drawn attention to whether UTJ will adopt a different approach to coalition negotiations after years of political cooperation with Netanyahu.

Wednesday’s declaration suggests that, at least on the draft issue, the party intends to maintain a firm position regardless of which political leader is ultimately entrusted with forming a government.

That distinction is important because the demand is not limited to negotiations with Likud.

According to the agreement between Agudas Yisroel and Degel HaTorah, the conditions apply to any future coalition, meaning that a government led by Eisenkot or another political figure would face the same requirements if it sought UTJ’s participation.

Whether such legislation could obtain sufficient support in a coalition including parties that have campaigned for increased Chareidi military enlistment remains an open question.

Eisenkot, a former IDF chief of staff, has emphasized the importance of expanding military participation and has opposed arrangements that would preserve broad exemptions without meaningful changes to the existing system.

Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Lieberman have also advocated policies aimed at increasing Chareidi participation in military or national service, although their specific proposals and political approaches differ.

Those positions could complicate any attempt to assemble a coalition involving both Chareidi parties and factions that have made increased conscription a central political objective.

Even within Netanyahu’s traditional bloc, the draft issue has proven difficult to resolve, as demonstrated by the repeated disputes that characterized the outgoing government’s final months.

UTJ’s decision to insist on completed legislation before accepting coalition positions would therefore require any prospective prime minister to address the controversy at an early stage of government formation.

The three conditions established by the party are particularly consequential because they concern not merely participation in the cabinet but also the ordinary functioning of a parliamentary coalition.

By refusing to support coalition-sponsored bills until the draft law is enacted, UTJ could deprive a prospective government of votes needed to advance its legislative agenda.

By declining ministerial and committee appointments, its representatives would also withhold participation in important elements of the government’s parliamentary structure.

The exception allowing support for specific legislation approved by senior Torah leaders preserves a measure of flexibility, but the central demand remains unchanged: the party wants the draft issue resolved through enacted legislation before it commits to normal coalition cooperation.

The question of whether Shas will adopt identical conditions has not yet been settled publicly. Although the two parties have cooperated closely on the conscription issue and signed a surplus-vote agreement before the election, they remain separate political factions with their own leadership and negotiating structures.

Shas chairman Aryeh Deri could therefore play an important role in determining whether the Chareidi parties negotiate jointly or pursue separate arrangements in the coming weeks.

The final election results will also influence their bargaining positions.

Preliminary returns showed United Torah Judaism running ahead of Shas in the popular vote, a potentially significant development after years in which Shas maintained a substantial electoral advantage.

Both parties, however, were facing the prospect of entering a Knesset in which neither major political bloc possessed a clear majority.

The coming coalition negotiations will consequently involve two overlapping questions: which political leader can secure enough parliamentary support to form a government, and whether that government can produce a draft law acceptable to the Chareidi parties and capable of surviving legal challenges.

Even passage of a new law would not necessarily end the controversy, given the likelihood of further judicial scrutiny and continuing disagreements over the constitutionality of broad exemptions.

For the Chareidi leadership, however, Wednesday’s declaration establishes a clear starting point.

After months of draft orders, arrests, legal battles, and unsuccessful legislative efforts, United Torah Judaism is signaling that it will no longer accept coalition commitments based solely on future promises.

The party is demanding concrete legislation before assuming governmental responsibilities or providing routine parliamentary support.

With Israel’s election results still being finalized and coalition negotiations yet to begin formally, the draft controversy has already reemerged as one of the defining questions facing the next Knesset.

For the olam haTorah, the outcome of those negotiations could have far-reaching consequences for yeshiva bochurim, Torah institutions, and the continued ability of young men to devote themselves to full-time Torah learning.

For Israel’s political leaders, the challenge will be determining whether a workable parliamentary majority can be assembled while accommodating demands that have already contributed to one of the country’s most difficult and prolonged political disputes.

{Matzav.com}

As millions of Israelis went to the polls on Tuesday, bereaved father Chagai Luber shared a moving account of the unusual way his son, Yehonatan Luber Hy”d, an IDF soldier who was killed in Gaza, used to cast his ballot, revealing a practice that reflected his deep respect for both Torah study and those serving in the Israeli military.

In a heartfelt social media post titled “Advice From Yehonatan for Those Undecided Between Ballots,” Luber recalled how his son approached elections before the war, when he found himself torn between two political parties representing values that were both important to him.

Rather than choosing one over the other, Yehonatan developed a remarkable method of voting that left the final decision beyond his own knowledge.

“This is how my son Yehonatan used to vote in the elections before the war,” his father wrote. “He would take a ballot marked ‘Gimmel’ for Agudas Yisroel, in which he saw dedication to Judaism and Torah study. And he would also take a ballot from a religious Zionist party, in which he saw support for settlement and military service.”

The two ballots represented different aspects of Yehonatan’s worldview. He admired the commitment to Torah learning that he associated with Agudas Yisroel, while also valuing the emphasis on strengthening Jewish communities in Eretz Yisroel and serving in the military that he saw in the religious Zionist movement.

His father described what happened next.

“He would mix the ballots behind his back until he no longer knew which was which,” Luber recalled. “Then, with his eyes closed, he would place one of them into the envelope, while crumpling the other into a small ball and throwing it away, without knowing which party’s ballot he had discarded.”

The unusual procedure meant that Yehonatan himself did not know which party had received his vote.

His father, understandably puzzled by the practice, once asked him why he voted that way.

“When I asked him about the meaning of his strange custom,” Luber wrote, “he looked at me, with a mischievous smile in his eyes, and said, ‘This way, I also involve my Father in Heaven in the choice.’”

The answer left his father speechless.

“I remained astonished, without a word,” Luber recalled.

Yehonatan would later fall in battle in the Gaza Strip, leaving his family to cherish the memories of his personality, convictions, and distinctive approach to life.

With Israelis once again heading to polling stations, his father found himself remembering that small ritual in the voting booth, an act that had seemed unusual at the time but had taken on an entirely different meaning in the years since his son’s death.

Luber concluded his post with an emotional reflection on the loss of his son and the finality of what had once been an ordinary election-day experience.

“And who could have imagined that this would be his final vote, and that G-d would choose him to shelter beneath the wings of the Shechinah,” he wrote. “And we remain with an orphaned ballot and a tear.”

{Matzav.com}

A potentially historic change in the balance of power within Israel’s Chareidi political establishment emerged Wednesday as United Torah Judaism overtook Shas in the popular vote, raising the possibility that the Ashkenazic Chareidi party could finish ahead of its Sephardic counterpart for the first time in years.

According to partial results from Tuesday’s Knesset election, United Torah Judaism received 240,648 votes, compared with 217,202 for Shas, giving UTJ a lead of 23,446 votes with more than 70 percent of ballots counted.

Although both parties were projected to receive seven Knesset seats at that stage of the count, the difference in their vote totals represented a striking development in a political relationship that has long seen Shas enjoy a substantial numerical advantage.

The figures, reported Wednesday morning, remained preliminary, with hundreds of thousands of ballots still outstanding. Nevertheless, the emerging results suggested that the traditional hierarchy between Israel’s two principal Chareidi parties could be undergoing a significant change.

For years, Shas has generally been the larger of the two factions, drawing support from Sephardic Chareidi communities and a broader constituency of traditional Sephardic voters. United Torah Judaism, the joint political framework of Degel HaTorah and Agudas Yisroel, has traditionally relied more heavily on the Ashkenazic Litvish and Chassidic communities.

The contrast is particularly pronounced when compared with the previous Knesset election in 2022, when Shas won 11 seats and United Torah Judaism secured seven. At that time, Shas held a four-seat advantage over its Ashkenazic counterpart, strengthening its position as the largest Chareidi faction in the Knesset.

The current projections, by contrast, would leave both parties with seven seats, eliminating that parliamentary advantage. If UTJ’s lead in the actual vote count survives the completion of the count, the Ashkenazic party would also emerge ahead in total votes.

That distinction carries significance beyond the distribution of Knesset mandates. The relative strength of Shas and United Torah Judaism has traditionally influenced their political standing, their bargaining power in coalition negotiations, and their respective positions within the broader Chareidi political landscape.

The apparent reversal comes after an unusually contentious election campaign in which the established Chareidi parties faced public dissatisfaction over the military draft controversy, the legal status of yeshiva bochurim, and the future of government support for Torah institutions.

Shas, led by Aryeh Deri, entered the election facing questions about whether it could retain the broad electoral coalition that had delivered its strong performance in 2022.

United Torah Judaism, meanwhile, sought to consolidate support across its Litvish and Chassidic constituencies amid continuing concern over the status of yeshiva students and the government’s handling of the conscription issue.

One possible explanation for UTJ’s stronger-than-expected showing is increased participation in Ashkenazic Chareidi and Chassidic strongholds, although a detailed examination of the municipal voting figures will be necessary to determine where the party gained ground.

The results may also reflect different patterns of voter participation and political dissatisfaction within the two communities. However, the preliminary national figures alone do not establish why voters supported one party over the other.

The results also need to be understood against the broader political uncertainty following Tuesday’s election.

With more than three-quarters of polling stations counted Wednesday morning, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s right-wing and Chareidi bloc was projected to receive approximately 54 seats, short of the 61 required to form a government.

The political bloc led by Gadi Eisenkot was also short of a majority, while the Arab parties were projected to hold a substantial number of seats. The resulting parliamentary arithmetic raised questions about how either side could assemble a governing coalition.

In that environment, the strength of the Chareidi parties could become particularly important. Both Shas and United Torah Judaism have traditionally played central roles in Netanyahu-led coalitions, and their representation in the next Knesset could influence negotiations over religious affairs, education funding, and legislation concerning the military draft.

Even if both parties ultimately receive seven seats, their relative vote totals could affect perceptions of their political strength, particularly following an election in which the Chareidi community faced intense debate over its parliamentary representation.

The apparent decline in Shas’s representation is especially notable. A reduction from 11 seats to seven would represent a loss of more than one-third of its previous Knesset delegation, although the final count could still alter that figure.

United Torah Judaism, by comparison, would retain its seven-seat representation from 2022 if the current projections hold. That would represent a considerably more stable parliamentary result, despite the political pressures surrounding the election.

The difference could also affect discussions within the Chareidi political establishment about how the parties conducted their campaigns, how effectively they mobilized voters, and how they should approach the next stage of the conscription controversy.

Nevertheless, the outcome remains far from final.

Israel’s Central Elections Committee must still process special double-envelope ballots cast by soldiers, diplomats, hospitalized patients, and other eligible voters who were unable to cast ordinary ballots at their registered polling stations.

These votes are counted separately and undergo additional verification procedures. Their inclusion can affect the final vote percentages and, in closely contested cases, the distribution of Knesset mandates.

The final allocation of seats will also depend on the performance of smaller parties near the electoral threshold and the application of Israel’s seat-distribution rules.

Consequently, UTJ’s lead of 23,446 votes over Shas should be viewed as a significant preliminary development rather than a confirmed final result.

Still, the possibility that United Torah Judaism could finish ahead of Shas in the national vote represents one of the more notable developments to emerge from the Chareidi sector in this election.

For the first time in years, the established political assumption that Shas would emerge as the larger Chareidi faction is being seriously challenged by the actual ballot count.

Whether the reversal survives the remaining count will become clearer as election officials complete their work. If it does, the 2026 election may be remembered not only for the uncertainty surrounding Israel’s next government, but also for a significant change in the relative electoral strength of the country’s two major Chareidi parties.

{Matzav.com}

An effort to challenge Israel’s established Chareidi political leadership suffered a decisive electoral setback Tuesday, as the newly formed Chareidi Public Party, headed by Moti Leitner, failed to come anywhere close to the threshold required for representation in the Knesset.

Despite an outspoken campaign aimed at attracting voters dissatisfied with Shas and United Torah Judaism, preliminary election results showed the party receiving just 6,998 votes nationwide, representing approximately 0.24 percent of the ballots counted as of early Wednesday morning.

The figure placed the party far below the 3.25 percent electoral threshold required to enter the Knesset and raised serious questions about the extent of electoral support for the alternative Chareidi political movement that Leitner had sought to establish.

The result was particularly striking because Leitner had repeatedly suggested during the campaign that his party would emerge as one of the election’s surprises, presenting his movement as a vehicle for Chareidim who believed that the existing political parties no longer adequately represented their concerns.

Instead, the results indicated that the overwhelming majority of Chareidi voters continued to support the established parties or other existing political frameworks.

The contrast was especially pronounced in Bnei Brak, one of the country’s largest Chareidi population centers. According to preliminary figures, Leitner’s party received only 509 votes in the city after most local polling stations had been counted.

The party also struggled in Modi’in Illit, where it received approximately 0.32 percent of the vote. In that city, the party attracted fewer votes than Likud and Religious Zionism, while Otzma Yehudit reportedly finished slightly ahead of it as well.

The results illustrated the difficulty of converting dissatisfaction with established political leadership into support for an entirely new party, particularly within communities where voting decisions have traditionally been closely associated with the guidance of rabbonim and roshei yeshiva.

Leitner’s campaign had sought to challenge that longstanding political arrangement, arguing that the Chareidi public needed an alternative to the existing parties.

His platform included support for greater Chareidi participation in military service and a willingness to reconsider aspects of the community’s traditional political relationship with the Israeli government. The party also included women among its candidates, distinguishing it from the established Chareidi lists.

Those positions placed Leitner at odds with important elements of the traditional Chareidi political establishment, particularly amid the ongoing controversy over the conscription of yeshiva bochurim.

Throughout the campaign, the party presented itself as a conservative political movement seeking to represent Chareidi voters who felt alienated from the current leadership.

Leitner also advocated the formation of a broad national-unity government and indicated that his movement would consider cooperating with United Torah Judaism under an arrangement that preserved its independent political identity.

In the closing days of the campaign, however, his rhetoric became increasingly confrontational.

During an interview published shortly before the election, Leitner sharply criticized United Torah Judaism MK Yaakov Asher, suggesting that Asher was moving politically toward Gadi Eisenkot’s camp.

Leitner also raised an unsubstantiated suggestion that Asher might be receiving outside financial support, while acknowledging that he did not know whether such funding existed.

The allegations were not accompanied by evidence, and Leitner’s comments generated controversy within Chareidi political circles.

The party’s decision to remain in the race despite polling that consistently placed it below the electoral threshold also drew criticism.

Following the release of Tuesday night’s exit polls, Chareidi commentator Betzalel Kahn publicly called on Beit Shemesh Mayor Shmuel Greenberg to dismiss Leitner from his municipal position.

Kahn argued that Leitner’s decision to challenge the established Chareidi parties despite opposition from rabbinic leadership should carry consequences for his continued public employment.

The remarks reflected the intense divisions surrounding the party’s campaign and the broader debate over whether alternative Chareidi political movements should be encouraged or opposed.

Yet Leitner himself offered a dramatically different interpretation of the election.

Rather than acknowledge the result as a defeat for his movement, he portrayed the campaign as the beginning of a longer political effort.

“The barrier of fear has been broken. A spark of hope has been ignited. Tonight is our victory,” Leitner declared in remarks following the release of the exit polls.

He described the campaign as the beginning of a lengthy political journey and argued that his supporters had demonstrated a willingness to challenge established political expectations.

Leitner also alleged that his party had faced attempts at delegitimization, threats, forgeries, curses, and insults during the campaign. Those allegations were presented by Leitner without independently established findings.

He maintained that the campaign would ultimately be remembered as a significant moment for the Chareidi community, even though the party had failed to achieve parliamentary representation.

The disappointing result came as United Torah Judaism and Shas appeared positioned to retain substantial representation in the Knesset.

Partial results released Wednesday showed United Torah Judaism projected to receive seven seats, with Shas also projected to win seven.

At one stage of the count, UTJ had received 240,648 votes compared with 217,202 for Shas, placing the Ashkenazic Chareidi party ahead of its Sephardic counterpart in the popular vote.

Those figures stood in sharp contrast to the approximately 7,000 votes received by Leitner’s movement.

Another alternative list, Tzeva Shachor, also failed to approach the electoral threshold. At the same early stage of the count, it had received 7,024 votes, slightly more than the Chareidi Public Party.

The results suggested that neither alternative list had succeeded in building the broad electoral constituency necessary to challenge the established Chareidi parties.

The setback was not limited to the Chareidi political arena.

Several other newly formed parties also appeared headed for exclusion from the next Knesset, including the Reservists Party, headed by Yoaz Hendel, and the People of Israel Party, led by former IDF officer Ofer Winter.

The Reservists Party was receiving approximately 2.7 percent of the vote in the partial count, while Winter’s party stood at approximately 1.7 percent.

Unlike Leitner’s party, those factions were closer to the electoral threshold, although neither had secured enough votes to enter the Knesset at the time of reporting.

Hendel expressed hope that ballots cast by soldiers and other special categories of voters could still alter his party’s standing.

For Leitner, however, the gap was considerably greater, leaving no realistic basis in the available partial figures for expecting his party to enter the Knesset.

The election also highlighted the consequences of Israel’s electoral threshold, under which parties receiving less than 3.25 percent of valid votes are excluded from the distribution of parliamentary seats.

Votes cast for parties that fail to reach that threshold do not contribute to the allocation of mandates among the successful lists.

That rule has long influenced the calculations of smaller political movements, which must decide whether to contest elections independently, merge with larger parties, or withdraw before Election Day.

In the Chareidi community, where electoral participation has traditionally been concentrated around Shas and United Torah Judaism, the decision to establish competing lists carries additional political and communal significance.

The draft controversy, disputes over government policy, and criticism of veteran political representatives had provided an opening for alternative voices during the campaign.

Nevertheless, the results so far indicated that those disagreements had not produced a substantial shift in voting toward Leitner’s movement.

The final national vote totals remain subject to change as Israel’s Central Elections Committee completes the counting process, including ballots cast through special double-envelope procedures.

However, the magnitude of the Chareidi Public Party’s shortfall means that the remaining count is not expected to change its parliamentary status.

The more significant question now concerns the future of the movement itself.

Leitner has made clear that he does not intend to abandon his political ambitions, arguing that the campaign established a foundation for continued activity.

Whether his movement can develop a larger constituency outside the immediate pressures of an election campaign remains uncertain.

For the established Chareidi parties, the election results provide evidence that their electoral base has remained substantially intact despite the controversies of recent months.

For Leitner, the outcome presents a different challenge: demonstrating that a movement capable of attracting only a few thousand votes can nevertheless become a lasting presence in Israeli public life.

His supporters may regard the campaign as the beginning of a political transformation, but the initial election returns tell a considerably more limited story. For now, the attempt to establish a new Chareidi parliamentary alternative has ended without a single Knesset seat.

{Matzav.com}

It is with great sadness that Matzav.com reports the petirah of Rav Pinchas Zelivansky zt”l, rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Merkaz HaTorah and rov of Kehillas Derech Hachaim in the Har Nof neighborhood of Yerushalayim, who was niftar following years of difficult illness and suffering.

Rav Zelivansky, a distinguished talmid chochom, marbitz Torah, and author of the seforim Nichbedei Noam, devoted his life to the study and dissemination of Torah, raising generations of talmidim through his dedication to limud haTorah b’iyun and his commitment to the transmission of Torah and mussar.

Throughout his prolonged period of suffering, Rav Zelivansky was described by those close to him as having accepted his difficult circumstances with extraordinary emunah and ahavas Hashem, continuing to embody the values of a life dedicated to Torah even as his physical strength declined.

Rav Zelivansky was born to his father, Hagaon Rav Mordechai Alter Zelivansky zt”l, and from his earliest years displayed a deep attachment to Torah learning.

As a young bochur, he entered Yeshivas Be’er Yaakov, where he developed a particularly close relationship with his uncle and rebbi, the renowned rosh yeshiva Hagaon Rav Moshe Shmuel Shapiro zt”l, one of the great Torah luminaries of his generation.

Under Rav Moshe Shmuel Shapiro, Rav Zelivansky absorbed the Brisker approach to Torah study, developing the analytical skills and profound appreciation for the depth of a sugya that would characterize his own approach to learning and teaching throughout his life.

During those formative years, he also became deeply attached to the legendary mashgiach, Hagaon Hatzaddik Rav Shlomo Wolbe zt”l, from whom he absorbed the foundations of mussar, yiras Shomayim, and personal growth in avodas Hashem.

The influence of these two towering figures, Rav Moshe Shmuel Shapiro in limud haTorah and Rav Shlomo Wolbe in mussar and avodah, remained central to Rav Zelivansky’s approach to the development of bnei Torah.

Upon reaching marriageable age, Rav Zelivansky married the daughter of Rav Chaim Kreiswirth zt”l, the famed Gaavad of Antwerp, Belgium, whose extraordinary Torah scholarship and remarkable mastery of Shas were renowned throughout the Torah world.

Through his marriage, Rav Zelivansky became part of a family deeply rooted in Torah scholarship and harbotzas haTorah. His illustrious father-in-law had established Yeshivas Merkaz HaTorah in Yerushalayim, an institution dedicated to cultivating serious Torah scholarship and producing accomplished talmidei chachomim.

In later years, Rav Zelivansky was called upon to assume leadership of the yeshiva established by his father-in-law, taking responsibility for continuing its mission and maintaining its standards of intensive Torah study.

As rosh yeshiva of Merkaz HaTorah, Rav Zelivansky devoted decades to teaching Torah and guiding talmidim, placing particular emphasis on the careful analysis of the words of the Gemara and Rishonim and the development of a clear and penetrating understanding of each sugya.

His approach to harbotzas haTorah reflected the traditions he had received from his own rabbeim, combining intellectual rigor with a profound sense of responsibility for the spiritual development of every talmid.

Over the course of his many years as a marbitz Torah, he taught thousands of talmidim, many of whom went on to establish their own homes and lives upon the foundations of Torah that he had helped instill in them.

In addition to his responsibilities at Merkaz HaTorah, Rav Zelivansky served as rov of Kehillas Derech Hachaim in Har Nof, where he was a central figure in the spiritual life of the community.

Through his leadership of the kehillah, his shiurim, and his personal example, he helped foster an atmosphere centered upon Torah learning, yiras Shomayim, and dedication to avodas Hashem.

Rav Zelivansky was also known for his Torah writings, including the seforim Nichbedei Noam, which reflect his lifelong dedication to the study and elucidation of Torah.

The niftar was a brother of Hagaon Rav Chaim Zelivansky zt”l, who served as rosh yeshiva of Yeshivas Meor HaTalmud in Rechovot. The two brothers were part of a family whose members dedicated their lives to the dissemination of Torah and the education of generations of bnei yeshiva.

In his later years, Rav Zelivansky endured a prolonged period of severe physical suffering. Despite the difficult yissurim that accompanied his illness, he remained steadfast in his emunah, accepting his circumstances with faith and devotion.

News of his petirah on Wednesday morning, 17 Cheshvan, brought sorrow to the many talmidim, family members, and members of his kehillah who had benefited from his Torah and guidance over the decades.

Rav Zelivansky leaves behind his rebbetzin, sons, sons-in-law, and numerous descendants, as well as thousands of talmidim who continue along the path of Torah learning and avodas Hashem that he exemplified.

The levayah is scheduled to take place today, Wednesday, October 28, at 1:30 p.m., departing from his bais medrash, Derech Hachaim, located at 20 Agassi Street in the Har Nof neighborhood of Yerushalayim.

The levayah will proceed to Har Hamenuchos, where Rav Zelivansky will be laid to rest.

Yehi zichro boruch.

{Matzav.com}

Israel witnessed an extraordinary surge in voter participation on Tuesday, with turnout in the election for the 26th Knesset reaching 77.7 percent, the highest level in approximately 25 years, as millions of Israelis flocked to polling stations in an election marked by intense political divisions and uncertainty over the country’s future leadership.

According to figures released by the Central Elections Committee, 5,695,682 Israelis had cast their ballots by 10 p.m., when polling stations officially closed. That represented an increase of approximately 7.1 percentage points over the corresponding figure in the November 2022 election, when turnout stood at 70.6 percent.

The figure was considered nearly final, although some voters who had already joined lines before polling stations closed were permitted to cast their ballots after 10 p.m.

Tuesday’s election was Israel’s first national vote since the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre and the subsequent years of war, security challenges, and domestic political upheaval. The unusually high participation reflected the intensity of public interest in an election that could reshape the country’s political leadership and determine the direction of several major national policies.

The surge began early in the day, with turnout figures repeatedly exceeding those recorded in previous elections.

By 10 a.m., approximately 17 percent of eligible voters had already cast their ballots, the highest participation at that hour since 1981. By noon, turnout had climbed to 31.5 percent, a level not seen at that stage of an election since the late 1970s.

The strong pace continued through the afternoon, prompting widespread predictions that Israel could approach an 80 percent turnout rate. Although participation slowed during the final hours of voting, the overall figure remained exceptionally high by historical standards.

The election involved approximately 7.33 million eligible voters, with polling stations operating in cities, towns, and communities throughout the country.

Turnout figures varied considerably by municipality, providing an indication of the different levels of voter mobilization across Israel.

In Bnei Brak, where Chareidi parties traditionally enjoy overwhelming support, turnout reached approximately 77 percent, close to the national average.

In Yerushalayim, participation stood at 65.9 percent, while Beit Shemesh recorded 67.8 percent and Ashdod reached 67.8 percent.

Elsewhere, Modi’in-Maccabim-Reut registered particularly strong participation of 79.2 percent, while Petach Tikvah reached 73 percent, Rishon Letzion recorded 71.3 percent, and Ramat Gan stood at 71.2 percent.

Tel Aviv recorded turnout of 65.4 percent, Haifa reached 61.6 percent, and Be’er Sheva registered 65.8 percent.

In two small communities in the Arava region, Paran and Shacharut, election officials reported that every eligible voter had cast a ballot, producing turnout figures of 100 percent.

The elevated national turnout was particularly significant because Israel’s electoral system allocates the Knesset’s 120 seats proportionally among parties that pass the 3.25 percent electoral threshold.

When more citizens participate, parties must secure a larger absolute number of votes to cross that threshold, potentially complicating the prospects of smaller political factions.

That issue was especially relevant in Tuesday’s election, which featured several smaller parties attempting to secure parliamentary representation, including alternative Chareidi political lists that sought to challenge the established leadership of Shas and United Torah Judaism.

The election also saw substantial participation among Arab voters, a development that attracted considerable attention because of its potential effect on the distribution of Knesset seats.

Exit polls released after voting ended projected that Arab political parties could significantly increase their combined representation in the Knesset. Those projections, however, remained subject to the official count and the distribution of votes among competing lists.

For the established Chareidi parties, the election took place against the backdrop of the continuing controversy over the military draft of yeshiva bochurim, the status of Torah study, and disagreements over the political leadership’s handling of those issues.

The campaign was accompanied by unusually sharp internal debates, with alternative Chareidi factions seeking support from voters dissatisfied with the established parties.

The exceptionally high national turnout added another dimension to those contests, as the final number of votes required to secure Knesset representation increased along with participation.

Voting among members of the Israel Defense Forces was also substantial. According to figures released by the military, approximately 68 percent of eligible soldiers had voted by 5 p.m., compared with 65 percent at the same hour during the 2022 election.

Military voting began on October 21 to accommodate operational requirements, with more than 850 polling stations deployed at bases and military positions, including locations in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria.

As the day progressed, reports of long lines and crowding at polling stations prompted several political parties to request an extension of voting hours.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s Likud party sought permission to keep polling stations open beyond the scheduled 10 p.m. closing time. Otzma Yehudit and Shas also supported the request, citing concerns about voters waiting in lines.

The Central Elections Committee rejected the proposal, determining that there was insufficient justification for a general extension.

However, the committee emphasized that anyone who had reached a polling station before its scheduled closing time would be permitted to vote, even if the process continued afterward.

In a statement following the close of voting, the Central Elections Committee welcomed the broad public participation and thanked voters and election workers throughout the country.

The committee also announced that the election had entered the next phase, involving the counting, processing, and verification of ballots.

Officials cautioned that results would be released gradually as counting progressed and that partial figures could change substantially before the count was completed.

The process is expected to continue over the coming days, particularly because of hundreds of thousands of special double-envelope ballots cast by soldiers, diplomats, hospitalized patients, and other voters who could not vote at their regular polling stations.

Those ballots require additional verification before being included in the official totals, meaning the final distribution of Knesset seats may not become clear immediately.

{Matzav.com}

Israel’s election results continued to shift Wednesday as the official ballot count advanced, with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s right-wing and Chareidi bloc projected to receive 54 Knesset seats, seven short of the majority needed to form a government, while the rival bloc associated with Gadi Eisenkot stood at 49 seats and the two Arab parties held a combined 17.

According to the latest figures released by Israel’s Central Elections Committee, 77.6 percent of the vote had been counted, providing the clearest picture yet of Tuesday’s closely contested election for the 26th Knesset. The results remained preliminary, however, with hundreds of thousands of ballots still awaiting processing and the final distribution of seats subject to change.

The latest figures represent a significant development from the early hours of Wednesday, when partial results initially gave Netanyahu’s bloc as many as 56 seats. As counting progressed, that figure declined to 54, while the balance between Eisenkot’s bloc and the Arab parties continued to fluctuate.

The most recent seat projections, based on the official partial count, give Netanyahu’s Likud party 27 seats, making it the largest faction in the Knesset, followed by Eisenkot’s Yashar party with 22. Naftali Bennett’s Beyachad party is projected to receive 12 seats, while the Arab Joint List stands at 11.

The Democrats, led by Yair Golan, are projected to receive eight seats, while Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beytenu is at seven.

Among the Chareidi parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism are each projected to win seven seats, giving them a combined 14 seats. Otzma Yehudit, led by Itamar Ben-Gvir, is also projected to receive seven seats, while the Religious Zionism-Zehut alliance stands at six. Ra’am, headed by Mansour Abbas, is projected to win six seats.

The projected distribution of the Knesset’s 120 seats is as follows:

Likud, led by Binyamin Netanyahu: 27 seats.

Yashar, led by Gadi Eisenkot: 22 seats.

Beyachad, led by Naftali Bennett: 12 seats.

Joint Arab List: 11 seats.

Democrats, led by Yair Golan: 8 seats.

Shas: 7 seats.

United Torah Judaism: 7 seats.

Otzma Yehudit: 7 seats.

Yisrael Beytenu: 7 seats.

Religious Zionism-Zehut: 6 seats.

Ra’am: 6 seats.

Under the current projections, Netanyahu’s bloc holds 54 seats, Eisenkot’s bloc has 49, and the Arab parties have a combined 17. A majority of 61 seats is required to form a government.

For Netanyahu, the results present a complicated political situation. Although Likud remains the largest individual party, the combined strength of the parties generally identified with his bloc falls short of a parliamentary majority. Unless the remaining votes substantially change the seat allocation, he would need additional support from outside his established political alliance to form a government.

Eisenkot faces a different but equally difficult challenge. His bloc’s projected 49 seats would also leave him short of a majority, meaning any attempt to assemble an alternative government would require support or cooperation from additional parties.

The 17 seats currently projected for the Joint List and Ra’am could therefore play an important role in determining the next government’s composition, although their combined representation does not automatically translate into support for an Eisenkot-led coalition.

The uncertainty was compounded by dramatic differences among the television networks’ election-night exit polls, particularly Channel 14’s projection of a right-wing majority.

Channel 14’s updated exit poll, prepared by pollster Shlomo Filber, projected 62 seats for Netanyahu’s bloc after placing Yisrael Beytenu below the electoral threshold. That scenario differed sharply from the projections issued by Kan 11, Channel 12, and Channel 13, which indicated that neither major political camp had secured a majority without the Arab parties.

The subsequent official count has so far diverged from Channel 14’s projection, with Yisrael Beytenu currently projected to enter the Knesset with seven seats and Netanyahu’s bloc standing at 54.

The election also produced a sharp contrast between the established Chareidi parties’ performance in the exit polls and their standing in the official count.

Shas, which won 11 seats in 2022, is currently projected to receive seven, a decline of four seats. United Torah Judaism, which won seven seats in the previous election, is also projected to receive seven, leaving it at its previous level.

Together, the two parties would control 14 seats, compared with 18 in the outgoing Knesset. Their combined representation would therefore decline by four seats if the current projections hold.

The results are particularly significant because the election campaign was dominated in part by the continuing controversy over the military draft of yeshiva bochurim, the future of Torah institutions, and the government’s handling of legislation intended to protect full-time Torah study.

Both Shas and United Torah Judaism faced criticism during the campaign over their handling of the draft crisis, while alternative Chareidi political movements sought to attract voters dissatisfied with the established parties.

The Chareidi Public Party, one of those alternative lists, was receiving approximately 0.2 percent of the vote in the partial count, far below the 3.25 percent threshold required to enter the Knesset. The Reservists Party was also below the threshold, at approximately 2.6 to 2.7 percent, while the People of Israel list stood at approximately 1.6 to 1.7 percent.

The final vote totals for these smaller parties could still be politically significant, even if they fail to win representation, because votes for parties below the threshold are excluded when Knesset seats are allocated.

The emerging political situation has already prompted discussion about whether the Chareidi parties might consider participating in a government not headed by Netanyahu.

According to a report by Channel 12, figures within Shas have not completely ruled out cooperation with Eisenkot, particularly if a future government advances an acceptable arrangement concerning yeshiva conscription.

“If there is a reasonable conscription law, perhaps we will join later,” a Shas source was quoted as saying.

Eisenkot has previously expressed opposition to including Chareidi parties in his coalition under the conditions they have advocated. Nevertheless, the election’s uncertain outcome has brought renewed attention to the possibility of alternative political arrangements.

The Arab parties, meanwhile, have emerged with considerably greater parliamentary representation than in the previous Knesset.

The Joint List and Ra’am are currently projected to win a combined 17 seats, compared with approximately 10 seats in the outgoing Knesset. Their increased strength reflects exceptionally high participation among Arab voters, with reports indicating turnout of approximately 80 percent in the Arab community.

The increased representation has already generated debate over whether parties opposed to Netanyahu should cooperate with Arab factions in an effort to assemble a governing majority.

Yair Golan, chairman of the Democrats, has called for the formation of an alternative government, while representatives of the Joint List have indicated their willingness to participate in discussions aimed at replacing Netanyahu’s administration.

Netanyahu, however, has strongly opposed the formation of a government dependent on Arab parties, arguing in his election-night address that Israel should instead establish a right-wing government.

Speaking to Likud supporters in Yerushalayim in the early hours of Wednesday, Netanyahu emphasized his party’s position as the largest faction in the Knesset and called for the formation of a broad right-wing coalition.

He also pointed to Israel’s military operations over the past several years and its cooperation with the United States, particularly regarding Iran.

“Israel has a unique opportunity with our partner President Trump to forever eliminate the existential threat of Iran,” Netanyahu said.

Eisenkot, addressing his own supporters in Tel Aviv, offered a sharply different interpretation of the election, arguing that voters had expressed a desire for new political leadership.

“The people decided in favor of change,” Eisenkot declared.

He also warned Netanyahu against using national security developments for political purposes during the period of uncertainty surrounding the formation of the next government.

President Donald Trump also weighed in on the Israeli election Wednesday, saying he had heard that Netanyahu had performed well and suggesting that his endorsement of the prime minister had helped change the political momentum.

“I’m hearing that he did very well,” Trump told reporters at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland.

“I actually heard he did pretty well,” he added, while acknowledging that it was still early to draw definitive conclusions from the results.

Trump also posted a message on Truth Social crediting his endorsement with helping Netanyahu avoid what he described as a potential electoral defeat.

The election was also marked by extraordinarily high voter participation.

According to the Central Elections Committee, turnout reached approximately 77.7 percent, the highest level since 1999 and an increase of 7.1 percentage points over the 2022 election.

Nearly 5.7 million Israelis cast ballots, reflecting the intensity of the political contest and the high level of public interest in the country’s future leadership.

The IDF reported that 79.9 percent of eligible military personnel participated in the election, an increase of approximately 6.2 percentage points compared with the previous vote. More than 890 military polling stations operated across Israel and in military units, including mobile polling stations intended to accommodate soldiers serving in operational positions.

The military vote could become particularly important in the final stages of counting.

Ballots cast by soldiers and other voters using special double-envelope procedures are processed separately from ordinary ballots, with additional verification required to prevent duplicate voting.

These votes, along with remaining ballots from regular polling stations, could affect the final distribution of seats, particularly for parties hovering near the electoral threshold or competing for the final mandates allocated under Israel’s proportional representation system.

The Central Elections Committee has emphasized that the figures released Wednesday are provisional and that the final results will not be known until the remaining ballots have been counted and verified.

The counting process could continue until Thursday or Friday, meaning the current parliamentary breakdown may still change.

Once the results are finalized, President Isaac Herzog will begin the process of determining which Knesset member should be entrusted with attempting to form the next government.

Under Israel’s parliamentary system, the presidency does not automatically assign the task to the leader of the largest party. Instead, the president consults representatives of the elected factions and considers which candidate has the strongest parliamentary support for forming a coalition.

That distinction could prove especially consequential if neither Netanyahu nor Eisenkot emerges with a clear majority.

For now, Israel remains without a definitive electoral outcome, with Netanyahu’s bloc holding a numerical advantage over Eisenkot’s bloc but neither side possessing the 61 seats required to govern independently.

The remaining ballots, the eventual positions of the Chareidi parties, and the willingness of rival factions to negotiate with one another will determine whether the election produces a new government, an unconventional coalition arrangement, or a prolonged political deadlock.

As Wednesday’s counting continued, the central question was no longer simply which party had received the most votes, but whether any political leader could assemble the parliamentary majority necessary to lead Israel’s next government.

{Matzav.com}

Hundreds of thousands of Israeli election ballots remained to be processed Wednesday as the country awaited the final results of Tuesday’s closely contested Knesset election, with votes cast by soldiers, diplomats, hospitalized patients, and other special categories of voters potentially affecting the distribution of parliamentary seats and the political calculations surrounding the formation of the next government.

The outstanding ballots have taken on particular significance because neither Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s right-wing and Chareidi bloc nor the opposing bloc associated with Gadi Eisenkot had secured the 61 seats necessary for a Knesset majority in the preliminary count.

With the parliamentary balance still uncertain, even a relatively small change in the allocation of mandates could influence the negotiations that follow the announcement of the final results.

Election officials have indicated that more than half a million ballots cast through special voting arrangements may need to be processed separately from the regular vote. These ballots, known in Israel as double-envelope ballots, represent a substantial portion of the electorate and could influence several closely contested Knesset seats.

The Central Elections Committee has been working to complete the regular count while preparing to process the special ballots, with a clearer picture expected as the verification and counting procedures advance Thursday.

Unlike ordinary voters, who generally cast their ballots at the polling station assigned to their registered address, certain categories of Israelis are permitted to vote elsewhere because of their circumstances.

These include soldiers serving away from home, patients hospitalized on Election Day, eligible diplomatic personnel stationed overseas, and other voters authorized to use special polling arrangements.

To prevent individuals from voting more than once, these ballots are placed inside an additional envelope bearing identifying information that allows election officials to verify the voter’s eligibility before the ballot itself is counted.

Once the necessary checks have been completed, the identifying envelope is separated from the sealed ballot envelope, preserving the secrecy of the vote.

The process is more complicated than counting ballots at ordinary polling stations, where voters’ eligibility is checked against the local voter registry before they cast their ballots.

The additional verification requirements help explain why the special ballots are counted later and why Israel’s election results can continue to change even after the overwhelming majority of ordinary polling stations have reported their totals.

The military vote is especially important because of the large number of Israelis serving in the IDF, including soldiers deployed in operational areas who cannot readily return to their registered polling stations.

According to figures released by the military, approximately 79.9 percent of eligible IDF personnel participated in the election, representing an increase over the previous national vote.

More than 890 military polling stations operated during the election, including mobile stations established to accommodate soldiers serving in remote or operational locations.

The high participation rate means that the military vote represents a significant component of the remaining count, although the precise political preferences reflected in those ballots cannot be established until they are processed.

The importance of the outstanding votes is heightened by Israel’s proportional representation system, under which the entire country functions as a single electoral district and the Knesset’s 120 seats are distributed among parties that pass the electoral threshold.

A party must receive at least 3.25 percent of the valid national vote to qualify for parliamentary representation.

Parties that fall below that threshold receive no Knesset seats, regardless of how many votes they accumulate.

Consequently, the inclusion of the remaining ballots could have consequences beyond the direct addition of votes to each party’s total.

If a party currently below the threshold were to qualify after the remaining votes were counted, the distribution of seats among the other parties would have to be recalculated.

Even if no additional party crosses the threshold, relatively small differences in vote totals can determine which parties receive the final mandates under Israel’s seat-allocation system.

That makes the remaining count particularly consequential in an election where the competing political blocs are separated by only a handful of seats.

The scale of the outstanding vote is unusually large this year.

In the 2022 election, approximately 463,000 double-envelope ballots were submitted. This year, election officials have prepared for an estimated 600,000 to 650,000, reflecting the large number of reservists mobilized during the continuing military conflict and the substantial population of Israelis displaced from their homes.

That represents an increase of roughly 30 to 40 percent over the previous election and an estimated 10 percent or more of all ballots cast.

At approximately 40,000 votes per Knesset seat, the outstanding ballots amount to roughly 15 seats’ worth of votes. That does not mean 15 seats remain vacant or will be assigned separately; rather, those votes will be added to the national totals and could change the allocation of mandates among parties.

The composition of the special-ballot electorate is another important factor.

Historically, double-envelope ballots have tended to produce different voting patterns from the regular national count. Because soldiers make up a substantial share of these voters, the ballots have generally been more favorable to Zionist parties across the political spectrum and less favorable to Chareidi and Arab parties.

That pattern could have particular significance for United Torah Judaism and Shas, both of which were projected to receive seven seats in Wednesday’s partial results.

The two parties have traditionally relied on concentrated support in Chareidi communities, where voters generally cast their ballots at their assigned neighborhood polling stations rather than through the special military voting arrangements.

As additional ballots from soldiers and reservists are included in the national count, the relative vote shares of Chareidi parties could decline, potentially affecting their final seat totals.

However, election analysts have cautioned against assuming that previous voting patterns will necessarily repeat themselves this year.

The large-scale mobilization of reservists has brought Israelis from a broad range of religious, social, and political backgrounds into military service, making the composition of the special-ballot vote more difficult to anticipate.

The consequences could be especially important for parties near the electoral threshold.

Among the parties that were below the threshold in Wednesday’s partial results were the Reservists Party, headed by Yoaz Hendel, and the People of Israel Party, led by Ofer Winter.

The Reservists Party was receiving approximately 2.6 to 2.7 percent of the vote, while Winter’s party stood at approximately 1.7 percent.

Although both remained below the 3.25 percent threshold, Hendel’s party was close enough that its representatives were watching the special-ballot count closely.

A significant increase in support from soldiers and reservists could affect its final percentage, although there was no guarantee that the remaining votes would be sufficient to bring it into the Knesset.

The importance of these ballots has been demonstrated in previous elections.

In 2019, Naftali Bennett and Ayelet Shaked’s New Right party narrowly failed to cross the electoral threshold, finishing just 1,461 votes short despite the inclusion of the special ballots.

That election also demonstrated how the late count could affect the distribution of seats among parties already above the threshold.

The current election presents an even larger logistical challenge because of the unprecedented number of special ballots.

Dean Livne, acting director-general of the Central Elections Committee, warned that the unusually high turnout could produce more double-envelope ballots than officials had initially anticipated.

“Tomorrow we will begin [counting] the double envelopes. It is important to say already now that with such a high turnout, it may be that the number of double envelopes is higher than we anticipated,” Livne said Tuesday.

“Therefore, the counting of the external envelopes may not end by Thursday night, and may extend until Friday morning. We will count them all,” he added.

Election officials have indicated that the special-ballot counting process could extend into Friday, with the committee seeking to complete the work before Shabbos.

Under Israeli law, the official election results must be published by November 4.

Until then, the seat projections being reported by television networks and news organizations remain provisional.

The distinction is particularly important because the Central Elections Committee publishes actual vote totals, while projected Knesset seat allocations depend on calculations that can change as additional ballots are included.

The final allocation also takes into account surplus-vote agreements between qualifying parties, which can influence which faction receives a remaining seat after the initial proportional distribution.

For Netanyahu and Eisenkot, the special-ballot count represents another stage in an election that has so far failed to produce a clear parliamentary majority.

Both political camps will be watching closely to see whether the remaining ballots alter the balance between the parties or create new possibilities for coalition negotiations.

For the Chareidi parties, the count will help determine whether United Torah Judaism and Shas retain their projected seven seats each, whether their relative standing changes, and how much parliamentary influence they will possess in the next Knesset.

For the smaller parties, the remaining votes could determine whether they enter the Knesset at all.

And for Israel as a whole, the double-envelope ballots are a reminder that even when the overwhelming majority of polling stations have completed their work, the election is not necessarily over.

With hundreds of thousands of votes still awaiting verification and counting, the final composition of the 26th Knesset remains unsettled, and the political picture could look different once the last ballots are included.

{Matzav.com}

LISTEN:

​​For more info, email bitachon4life@gmail.com.

LISTEN:

A special election-day exit poll conducted by the Chareidi news outlet Kikar HaShabbat found that 80% of Chareidi voters supported the two established Chareidi parties, United Torah Judaism and Shas, while alternative parties attracted smaller but potentially significant shares of the vote.

The survey, conducted Tuesday, October 27, in Chareidi communities, offered a rare look at voting patterns within the Chareidi sector itself, rather than the nationwide distribution of Knesset seats. According to the findings, United Torah Judaism received 48% of the Chareidi vote, followed by Shas with 32%.

The newly formed HaTzibbur HaChareidi party, associated with Leitner, received 7%, making it the largest alternative to the two traditional Chareidi factions among respondents. Otzma Yehudit, led by Itamar Ben-Gvir, followed with 5%, while the Tzeva Shachor (Black Color) party received 2%.

Religious Zionism also drew 2% of the Chareidi vote, according to the survey. Likud and Noam LeYisrael each received 1%, while parties belonging to the anti-Netanyahu political camp collectively attracted just 2%.

The results suggest that despite a contentious election campaign marked by disputes over military conscription, Chareidi political representation, and the emergence of alternative parties, the overwhelming majority of surveyed Chareidi voters continued to support Shas and United Torah Judaism.

At the same time, the combined 9% support recorded for HaTzibbur HaChareidi and Tzeva Shachor points to a measurable constituency willing to vote outside the established Chareidi party framework.

The survey’s findings are particularly noteworthy because the election campaign featured growing debate over whether the traditional Chareidi parties could retain their longstanding electoral support amid disagreements over their handling of the draft issue and other matters affecting the Chareidi community.

The Kikar HaShabbat survey also indicated that support for non-Chareidi right-wing parties was considerably greater than support for parties associated with the anti-Netanyahu camp. Otzma Yehudit, Religious Zionism, Likud, and Noam LeYisrael together accounted for 9% of respondents, compared with the 2% who supported parties in the opposing political bloc.

These figures describe voting preferences within the surveyed Chareidi population and should not be confused with the nationwide vote shares of the respective parties or their projected Knesset representation.

Kikar HaShabbat described the project as the first exit poll of its kind undertaken by a Chareidi news organization, designed specifically to measure how Chareidi voters divided their support among competing parties.

The survey was conducted through specially designated exit-poll stations at polling locations in Bnei Brak, Yerushalayim, and Beit Shemesh, supplemented by an online survey. The project was conducted in conjunction with the research organization Super Data.

Unlike conventional pre-election opinion polls, which ask respondents how they intend to vote, exit polls seek information from individuals who have already cast their ballots. Participating voters are typically asked to reproduce their selections anonymously, allowing researchers to estimate voting patterns before the official count is completed.

The researchers then analyze the responses, applying statistical adjustments intended to account for differences in turnout, geographic representation, and the demographic composition of participating voters.

The accuracy of such surveys depends heavily on the selection of polling locations and the willingness of different groups of voters to participate. Even a large number of responses can produce a misleading picture if certain communities or political constituencies are overrepresented.

Kikar HaShabbat acknowledged several potential sources of error, including sampling fluctuations, differences in participation rates among supporters of competing parties, and the possibility that voters might not accurately disclose their selections.

The timing of responses can also influence the results. If voters arriving during the final hours of polling differ politically from those who cast their ballots earlier, preliminary estimates may not fully reflect the final distribution.

The survey’s combination of physical polling locations and online participation introduces another consideration, since internet-based respondents may differ from voters who participate at designated exit-poll stations. The published report did not provide a sample size or margin of error, making it difficult to independently assess the precision of the individual percentages.

The findings also do not establish how many Knesset seats the smaller parties will receive. A party’s share of the Chareidi vote is different from its share of all votes cast nationwide, and parties must cross Israel’s electoral threshold to qualify for parliamentary representation.

That distinction is especially important for HaTzibbur HaChareidi and Tzeva Shachor. Although the two parties together attracted 9% of respondents in the Chareidi-focused survey, their ability to enter the Knesset depends on their nationwide results rather than their support within the Chareidi sector alone.

For Shas and United Torah Judaism, the findings indicate continued support among the voters surveyed, even as the emergence of competing Chareidi lists introduces additional questions about the future distribution of the community’s political vote.

The final official results will determine whether the support recorded by the smaller parties translates into parliamentary representation and whether the traditional Chareidi factions retain the electoral strength suggested by the exit poll.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu declared early Wednesday morning that Likud had emerged as Israel’s largest political party in the country’s 26th Knesset elections, calling on the nation’s right-wing and Zionist political forces to unite behind a new government and warning that an administration dependent on Arab parties would jeopardize Israel’s security.

Speaking to cheering Likud supporters at the International Convention Center in Yerushalayim following the release of television exit polls, Netanyahu portrayed the election as a critical moment for Israel’s political future. Although the final vote count remained outstanding, he insisted that the results demonstrated substantial public support for his party and its policies.

Netanyahu began by expressing appreciation to Likud campaign workers, candidates, and political allies before turning to what he described as Israel’s extraordinary military accomplishments during the preceding three years.

The prime minister reviewed operations against Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, pointing to the elimination of prominent terrorist leaders and senior Iranian officials, including Mohammed Deif, Ismail Haniyeh, Yahya Sinwar, Hassan Nasrallah, and Ali Khamenei. He also cited the creation of security buffer zones in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria as evidence of Israel’s transformed strategic position.

“Iran is weaker than ever, Israel is stronger than ever,” Netanyahu declared.

Nevertheless, Netanyahu cautioned that Israel’s confrontation with Tehran was far from concluded. He maintained that the Iranian regime, despite suffering severe military setbacks, continued to harbor ambitions of destroying Israel and would remain a danger as long as it retained power.

“And we have the power, together with our wonderful friend President Trump, to eliminate this threat once and for all,” Netanyahu said.

Moving to the domestic political situation, Netanyahu acknowledged that the exit polls represented only preliminary projections and urged supporters to wait for the official election results, which he said were expected within the following two days.

“Likud is the largest party in Israel,” he declared, accusing media organizations of attempting to demoralize his supporters during the campaign by publishing surveys that substantially underestimated the party’s electoral strength.

“Do you remember how the propaganda channels tried to manipulate public opinion? Likud at 18 seats, 19 seats. They knew all along that it was a lie. They tried to discourage you, simply discourage you from going to the polls,” he said.

Netanyahu argued that the election projections revealed more than Likud’s continued prominence. In his assessment, they also demonstrated that right-wing parties commanded broad support among Israel’s Jewish and Zionist voters, even as the overall parliamentary arithmetic remained uncertain.

“The second thing that became clear is that the right-wing bloc has a clear, decisive majority among the Zionist public, among the Jewish public and all those who support the Jewish state,” he said.

“That is why I said, and I say again, that we must establish a strong, national, right-wing government.”

The prime minister then launched into a forceful attack on the possibility of opposition parties forming a coalition that would require the parliamentary backing of Arab factions. Such an arrangement, he argued, would place Israel’s national interests at risk.

“We must not, absolutely must not, endanger Israel by establishing a government that relies on anti-Zionist Arab parties. Parties that oppose our very existence, that view Hamas as a charitable organization, that call our soldiers war criminals,” Netanyahu said.

He also challenged opposition politicians who had campaigned under the banner of an “alliance of those who serve,” accusing them of contradicting that message by entertaining cooperation with parties that he said were hostile to Israeli soldiers.

“How can you talk about an alliance of those who serve when you join forces with those who attack the people who serve us? The IDF soldiers, those who not only do not serve the state, but serve the enemies of the state,” he said.

Netanyahu specifically referred to the Islamic Movement, the Joint List, and Balad as he urged Israel’s right-wing and Zionist parties to set aside their differences and cooperate in establishing the next government.

“The Zionist majority in the State of Israel, the Jewish and Zionist majority, must come to its senses and unite. Because only this way, only this way, can we ensure Israel’s future,” he stressed.

Thanking Likud voters for their continued support, Netanyahu maintained that the election demonstrated the public’s refusal to abandon right-wing leadership. He also renewed his criticism of investigations and legal proceedings against him, characterizing them as politically motivated efforts to remove his government from power.

A more personal portion of the address focused on Israeli soldiers, wounded servicemen, and families who had lost loved ones in the country’s wars.

Netanyahu described a recent visit to the Kosel, where he encountered a severely wounded IDF soldier confined to a wheelchair. The soldier, unable to communicate through ordinary speech, relied on a tablet computer to express himself.

According to Netanyahu, the soldier used his nose to operate the device and compose a message expressing his affection for fellow IDF servicemen and his determination to continue contributing to the country and living a meaningful life despite his injuries.

The prime minister said the encounter deeply moved him. He embraced and kissed the soldier before placing a note in the Kosel containing a prayer for Israel’s security and the success of its soldiers.

Netanyahu used the account to illustrate what he described as the extraordinary determination of Israel’s servicemen and the responsibility of the country’s political leadership to honor their sacrifices.

Returning to foreign policy, he again emphasized the significance of Israel’s relationship with President Donald Trump, presenting the partnership as an unprecedented opportunity to confront the Iranian regime and eliminate what he characterized as an existential danger.

“Israel stands before a once-in-a-lifetime historic opportunity, together with our partner President Trump, to eliminate the existential threat from Iran once and for all. We must not, absolutely must not, allow any ulterior considerations to divert us from this sacred mission,” he said.

As his remarks drew toward a close, Netanyahu expressed gratitude to his coalition partners for remaining alongside him through years of political turmoil, military conflict, and national challenges.

He also offered a personal tribute to his wife, Sara, and their sons, Yair and Avner, referring to the criticism, accusations, and threats he said his family had endured. Netanyahu thanked Hashem for granting him the strength to continue serving Israel despite those pressures.

The prime minister ended with a declaration of confidence in Israel’s ability to withstand future challenges, presenting the country’s recent military achievements as grounds for optimism about the years ahead.

“We have overcome our enemies, and together we will overcome them in the future as well. Fear not, Israel, fear not.”

The broader election picture, however, remained considerably less favorable to Netanyahu than Likud’s first-place finish might suggest. Exit polls conducted by Channel 12, Channel 13, and Kan indicated that the parties aligned with Netanyahu would win approximately 50 seats, compared with 52 or 53 for the Jewish-led opposition parties. Arab parties were projected to secure another 17 or 18 mandates, leaving neither major political camp with the 61 seats required to control the Knesset.

Other television surveys offered more encouraging numbers for Netanyahu. Channel 14 projected that the right-wing bloc would capture 60 seats, just one short of a majority, while i24NEWS placed the bloc at approximately 55. The wide differences among the surveys left considerable uncertainty over the final distribution of seats and the prospects for forming a coalition.

The election also appeared to produce unusually strong participation, with turnout exceeding 77 percent, the highest level recorded in more than two decades. The large number of voters, together with the substantial projected gains for Arab parties, contributed to the unpredictable political landscape.

Even if Likud ultimately finishes as the largest individual party, Netanyahu will not automatically receive the opportunity to establish the next government. Under Israel’s parliamentary system, President Isaac Herzog will consult with the newly elected factions before selecting the lawmaker considered most capable of assembling a governing coalition.

Opposition leader Gadi Eisenkot, whose Yashar party was projected to finish second behind Likud, is also expected to seek the opportunity to form a government. His potential path to power could involve cooperation among several opposition factions and some form of parliamentary support from Arab parties, precisely the scenario Netanyahu sought to discredit in his election-night address.

With the official count still underway, Israel faces the possibility of prolonged coalition negotiations, a minority government, or another election if neither political camp can assemble a workable majority. Netanyahu’s speech made clear that, regardless of the final numbers, he intends to fight to retain the premiership and prevent his opponents from forming a government dependent on Arab parliamentary support.

{Matzav.com}

Religious Zionist Party chairman and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich declared early Wednesday morning that Jewish communities would be established in the Gaza Strip, delivering the pledge during an election-night gathering in Yerushalayim as his party awaited final results that could determine its strength in the next Knesset.

Smotrich arrived at the Religious Zionist Party’s election headquarters at the Ramada Hotel approximately two hours after television networks released their exit polls for Israel’s 26th Knesset elections. Party activists welcomed him with dancing, while rabbonim and other supporters joined the gathering.

Despite projections indicating that his party would win either six or seven seats, Smotrich struck an upbeat tone, suggesting that ballots cast by Israeli soldiers could improve the party’s final showing once the official count was completed.

“It is possible that the soldiers’ votes will push us higher,” Smotrich said.

The finance minister was referring to the special double-envelope voting system used for soldiers and certain other voters whose ballots are counted separately. Those votes can influence the final allocation of Knesset seats, particularly when parties are separated by narrow margins.

Smotrich’s Religious Zionist Party contested the election on a joint slate with Zehut, the party headed by Moshe Feiglin. The six television exit polls released after voting concluded placed the combined list within a narrow range of six to seven mandates.

Channel 12 and Kan 11 both forecast six seats for the alliance, a projection also reflected in the i24NEWS survey conducted by the Direct Polls institute. Channel 13 likewise placed the Religious Zionist–Zehut slate at six seats.

Two other networks offered a somewhat stronger outlook for Smotrich. Channel 14 projected seven mandates for the party, while Channel 16 arrived at the same figure, leaving open the possibility of a slightly larger parliamentary delegation once all ballots were counted.

Smotrich then turned his attention to the reaction of Arab political parties to the election projections, warning that any expectation of a reversal in Israeli settlement policy would prove mistaken.

“I see on some of the screens that the Arabs are celebrating, so I am announcing to you and to them: We will not let them celebrate,” Smotrich said.

He maintained that the celebrations reflected hopes among Arab political figures that the next government would retreat from policies expanding Jewish communities in Yehudah and Shomron.

“They are celebrating because they think they will succeed in reversing our settlement revolution in Judea and Samaria. I am telling them: They will not succeed.”

Smotrich ended his remarks by extending his settlement vision beyond Yehudah and Shomron, making an unequivocal declaration about the future of the Gaza Strip.

“Jewish communities will be established in Gaza.”

The declaration came amid a deeply uncertain national election picture. Exit polls indicated that neither Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s existing political alliance nor the principal opposition parties had secured a clear majority in the 120-seat Knesset. The Arab parties were projected to win a substantial bloc of seats, potentially complicating negotiations over the formation of the next government.

The uncertainty was particularly significant for Smotrich, whose party has been a prominent advocate of expanding Jewish settlement in Yehudah and Shomron and reestablishing Jewish communities in Gaza. His remarks signaled that he intends to continue pursuing those objectives regardless of the challenges facing Netanyahu’s political camp.

The Religious Zionist–Zehut alliance’s projected six or seven seats also represented a change from the previous election, when Smotrich’s party ran together with Itamar Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit and the combined list secured 14 mandates. This time, the two factions ran separately, with Ben-Gvir’s party also projected to receive approximately six or seven seats.

With official results still pending, Smotrich’s immediate political influence remained uncertain. His speech nevertheless made clear that he views the expansion of Jewish settlement as a central priority and has no intention of abandoning his plans for Gaza.

{Matzav.com}