Israel’s coalition crisis is exposing a dangerous question: How far will political leaders go to seize power—and what will they hand over to parties whose own words and actions challenge the Jewish state?
At the opening of the new Knesset, Benjamin Netanyahu put those words on the record. He quoted Ra’am lawmaker Walid Taha saying Palestinians are the owners of the land and that “this occupation will be set aside.” He cited Ra’am chairman Mansour Abbas calling Jews “invaders in this land,” and recalled Abbas’s vision of a “democratic caliphate,” with Palestine “from the sea to the river, on the ruins of Israel.”
These are not abstract arguments about budgets or roads. They describe a political vision in which Israel’s existence is temporary and its Jewish character is something to be overcome.
And yet the opposition is considering relying on these parties to form a government.
The anthem tells the story
At the Knesset’s opening ceremony, lawmakers stood for Israel’s national anthem, “Hatikvah.” Joint List lawmakers walked out. Most Ra’am lawmakers also left the chamber. The anthem speaks of the Jewish people’s ancient hope to live as a free people in their own land. Their walkout was a public rejection of that national story, delivered inside the parliament of the country they seek to help govern.
Mansour Abbas remained in the chamber. But one man’s decision to stay does not erase what the other lawmakers did—or the political meaning of a walkout at the moment Israel’s elected representatives gathered under the symbols of the state.
This is the contradiction at the heart of the coalition talks: parties that reject the national symbols and challenge the Jewish character of Israel are being courted as potential partners by leaders who say they want to govern Israel.
A majority assembled on borrowed votes
The opposition bloc has 48 seats. The Arab-led parties hold 19. Together, they could provide the numbers for a majority in the 120-seat Knesset.
That is the arithmetic. The danger is what comes with it.
A government dependent on a narrow majority cannot treat its pivotal partners as spectators. Every vote becomes leverage. The parties holding that leverage can demand influence over policy, appointments, budgets, and the government’s response to national emergencies.
