Israel needs a coalition of the majority – Israel & Jewish News

(Oct. 30, 2026 / JNS)

Israel has just held another election, and once again appears to find itself in a familiar situation where no political bloc can form a government without making concessions to smaller parties. Meanwhile, non-Haredi Jews, the largest population group in Israel, continue to have less influence over government policy than their numbers would suggest.

Something is wrong with this picture.

Non-Haredi Jews—whether secular, traditional or religious Zionists—are not a single political bloc. They disagree on many issues, sometimes profoundly. But many share basic concerns: security, economic stability, education, military service and the future of the country.

So why can’t the parties representing much of this population agree to govern together?

Opposition party leaders Gadi Eisenkot, Naftali Bennett, Yair Lapid and Avigdor Liberman should seriously consider putting aside the “Just Not Bibi” position and negotiating a broad coalition with Likud. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would also have to make concessions.

The purpose of such a unity government would not be to save Netanyahu politically, but to give Israel a government capable of making decisions without depending on the demands of smaller parties.

Based on preliminary election projections, Netanyahu’s Likud, Eisenkot’s Yashar, Bennett and Lapid’s B’Yachad and Liberman’s Yisrael Beitenu could together command approximately 66 Knesset seats, more than the 61 needed for a majority. Such a coalition would be possible without the Haredi parties.

Instead of spending weeks negotiating who gets which ministry, perhaps these leaders—and all Jewish leaders, for that matter—should consider what could be accomplished by working together.

Start with security.

Israel faces threats from Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and other enemies. A government including these leaders would bring together considerable military, diplomatic and political experience. They would certainly disagree, but could develop a national security policy with broader support and greater continuity.

Such a coalition could also address military service more seriously. It is increasingly difficult to justify a system in which some Israelis are expected to serve, fight and risk their lives while others receive broad exemptions. A government not dependent on Haredi parties could finally address this inequality.

The economic advantages could be equally great.

Israel has enormous economic potential, but also high living costs, housing shortages, growing defense expenses and pressure on public services. A government less dependent on sectoral interests could direct more resources toward infrastructure, education, healthcare and economic growth.

One particularly important issue is the relationship between the government and the Haredi community.

According to the Israel Democracy Institute (IDI), Haredim represented approximately 14.3% of Israel’s population in 2025. Yet their political parties have frequently exercised influence far beyond their electoral weight because their support is essential to forming governments.

The problem is not the Haredi population itself. Haredi Israelis have the same rights as everyone else. The problem is a political arrangement that allows relatively small parties to determine policies affecting the entire country.

Consider employment.

IDI found that approximately 54% of Haredi men were employed, compared with substantially higher rates among non-Haredi Jewish men. Among Haredi women, employment was approximately 81%.

A broad coalition could change incentives that contribute to this situation, gradually reducing subsidies that discourage employment while investing in vocational training, core education and economic independence.

There is also the demographic question, which politicians generally prefer to avoid.

A government representing a wider range of Israeli political opinion could improve relations with the United States, Europe and regional partners.

Again, according to IDI, Haredi women had an average of approximately 6.5 children, compared with 2.2 among other Jewish women, based on 2021-2023 figures. Religion, tradition and community expectations are clearly major reasons for this difference. But financial incentives may also play a role.

When government support makes it easier to sustain large families on limited earned income, it is reasonable to ask whether these policies also influence family-size decisions.

Reducing such incentives might eventually contribute to lower birth rates, although this relationship has not been conclusively established. The objective should not be to tell anyone how many children to have, but to encourage economic independence rather than increasing dependence on government support.

Children should never be punished for their parents’ choices, and assistance to families in genuine need must continue. But government policy should encourage education, employment and self-sufficiency.

Importantly, a broad coalition would not silence those outside the government.

Haredi, Arab and far-right parties would continue representing their voters in the Knesset, proposing legislation, participating in committees, questioning ministers and criticizing government decisions. Their voices would still be heard, as they should be in a democracy. What would change is their ability to use their participation in government as leverage to demand concessions that benefit their constituencies at the expense of broader national priorities.

There is a considerable difference between having a voice in the Knesset and having the power to determine government policy.

There are other advantages. Such a coalition could reduce political polarization, make judicial reforms less confrontational and begin repairing divisions within Israeli society.

Internationally, a government representing a wider range of Israeli political opinion could improve relations with the United States, Europe and regional partners. It would demonstrate that Israel can put national interests ahead of political rivalries.

Of course, there are disadvantages.

Netanyahu remains controversial. His legal proceedings, the judicial reform controversy and the failures surrounding Oct. 7 have created legitimate concerns. Eisenkot, Bennett, Lapid and Liberman would face criticism from voters who supported them precisely because they oppose Netanyahu.

Disagreements would also occur over the judiciary, Palestinian policy, settlements and political power. A large coalition could become ineffective if every decision required endless compromises. It could also leave Israel with a weaker parliamentary opposition.

Excluding Haredi parties from government could deepen tensions with that community. This should be addressed through dialogue and fair policies, not by abandoning necessary reforms.

Netanyahu must also be willing to share power under an agreed arrangement and honor his commitments for the good of the country.

These are serious challenges. But are they greater than the advantages of a stable government capable of making long-overdue decisions?

The potential benefits far outweigh the risks.

A coalition agreement could establish clear priorities; an independent investigation into Oct. 7; safeguards for democratic institutions; and a timetable for economic and military service reforms.

No one should be asked to abandon principles or ignore accountability. But refusing to cooperate with someone should not become a political principle more important than the country’s future.

Israel has spent too much time arguing about who should govern and too little time discussing what the government could accomplish. It doesn’t need another coalition built around keeping one politician in power or keeping another out. It needs a coalition built around what is best for the country.

And that may require its leaders to do something unusually difficult in Israeli politics: put their personal ambitions aside.