分类： world

Global character licensing giant Sanrio, the Japanese entertainment firm behind world-famous IP including Hello Kitty, My Melody and Cinnamoroll, has formally issued a public apology and immediately severed all ties with the popular Japanese spy thriller series *Vivant*, following widespread public and state media pushback across China. The backlash erupted after Sanrio launched co-branded merchandise that dressed its iconic cute characters in costumes modeled after roles from the second season of *Vivant*, a 2024 summer premiere installment that depicts Chinese intelligence operatives inflicting graphic torture on a Japanese field agent, including acts of finger amputation and abdominal stabbing. Chinese state broadcasters such as CCTV and leading state-run tabloid *Global Times* have condemned the show’s narrative as a deliberate distortion of historical facts, noting that the brutal torture tactics portrayed closely mirror the atrocities committed by Japanese invading forces against Chinese civilians during World War II. The *Global Times* further warned that Sanrio risked eroding decades of accumulated consumer trust and emotional connection with its massive Chinese fanbase, far beyond any temporary revenue gains from the collaboration, explicitly stating that the beloved Hello Kitty IP “should not dance with Japan’s right wing.” In an official late Wednesday statement, Sanrio confirmed it had axed the partnership after an internal review found the show’s content included elements fundamentally misaligned with the company’s longstanding core values. The firm emphasized that since its founding, all its character properties have been designed to spread messages of mutual care, cross-cultural connection, and its overarching corporate mission to nurture harmony between people of all nationalities. Sanrio added that it has taken public feedback on the incident extremely seriously, and will implement significantly tightened multi-layer review protocols for every future cross-brand collaborative project to prevent similar missteps. The controversy unfolds against a backdrop of sharply deteriorated China-Japan diplomatic relations, which have fallen to their lowest ebb in multiple years after Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi made remarks in parliament last November suggesting Tokyo would deploy its Self-Defense Forces in the event of a hypothetical Chinese military action against Taiwan. Since those comments, Beijing has rolled out a series of retaliatory measures targeting Tokyo, including restricted rare earth export quotas, curbs on inbound Chinese tourism to Japan, and the early repatriation of all giant pandas on loan to Japanese zoos. Adding further fuel to public sentiment, Takaichi publicly noted earlier this month that she had recorded full episodes of *Vivant* and planned to binge-watch the series during the year-end holiday break. The Tokyo Broadcasting System (TBS), the network that produces and airs the hit thriller, released a separate statement from its president Masamine Ryuho on Wednesday, defending the show as a completely fictional creative work with no intention to disparage any sovereign nation. The Sanrio controversy is not an isolated incident of international brands and public figures facing consumer backlash in China in recent days: earlier that week, multiple major Chinese domestic brands had cut their endorsement contracts with star French footballer Kylian Mbappé after he made widely condemned remarks referencing late Chinese leader Mao Zedong, for which the athlete later issued a formal public apology.

Preliminary vote tallies from Israel’s Tuesday national elections, with 86% of ballots processed by Wednesday morning, have set the stage for a seismic political shakeup that could unseat long-serving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after a four-year tenure defined by devastating military campaigns in Gaza and accelerating dispossession and displacement of Palestinian communities across the occupied West Bank. Netanyahu’s far-right religious governing bloc is projected to lose 11 Knesset seats, landing at just 53 seats — eight short of the 61-seat threshold required to form a governing majority. The centrist Jewish opposition faction, led by former Yashar party chief Gadi Eisenkot, is on track to secure 48 seats, putting it in prime position to claim control of the 120-seat parliament, but only if it can lock in support from the newly empowered Arab minority parties, which won a historic 19 seats on the back of record voter participation. Arab voters defied a sustained campaign of racist incitement from Netanyahu’s electoral camp and widespread ballot access suppression efforts to turn out in unprecedented numbers, a milestone analysts are framing as a transformative moment for Israeli politics. Ameer Fakhoury, a researcher at Jerusalem’s Van Leer Jerusalem Institute think tank, called the mobilization of Palestinian citizens of Israel a “truly historic development,” noting that voters turned out en masse to reject a government they hold responsible for widespread devastation in Gaza, de facto ethnic cleansing operations in the West Bank, and decades of systemic persecution and intimidation targeting their communities. “History has placed Palestinian citizens of Israel in an extraordinary position,” Fakhoury told Middle East Eye. “Having mobilized first and foremost to protect their own people, they may now also help rescue Jewish Israelis from their country’s destructive trajectory.” The newfound leverage held by Arab parties has sparked fierce negotiations and deep rifts across the Israeli political spectrum, with a tight legal deadline to form a new government before a fresh round of elections is automatically triggered. The leader of the smaller Arab faction Ra’am, Mansour Abbas, signaled his willingness to compromise shortly after preliminary results were released, stating his core priority was to oust Netanyahu, far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, and extremist National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir in this electoral cycle. Ra’am previously backed a narrow right-wing coalition led by former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett in 2021, but its 7 projected seats alone are insufficient to push the opposition bloc across the 61-seat majority line. The larger left-wing Arab alliance, the Joint List, has also offered to back an Eisenkot-led government, but its parliamentary leader Ahmad Tibi has laid out a clear set of non-negotiable demands: targeted action to curb soaring violent crime in Arab-majority communities, an immediate end to state-ordered home demolitions disproportionately targeting Arab families (most of whom are denied construction permits under systemic discriminatory policies), a crackdown on state-sanctioned racist incitement against Arab citizens, and a formal policy roadmap to advance Palestinian self-determination. Tibi summed up the historic choice facing Israeli voters with the widely circulated catchphrase “either Bibi or Tibi.” Eisenkot, who has framed forcing Netanyahu’s full retirement from political life as a core campaign goal, has attempted to court skeptical right-leaning Jewish voters who hold hostile views of Arab political participation by imposing preconditions for formal cooperation with Arab parties: that they formally recognize Israel as an explicitly Jewish state, support mandatory military conscription for Palestinian citizens of Israel, and publicly designate Hamas as a terrorist organization. The socialist Hadash party, the largest faction within the Joint List, has rejected these terms outright. “Laying down conditions won’t work with the Joint List,” said Amjad Shbita, Hadash’s general secretary. “We will negotiate as equals because we need each other.” Deep internal fractures are also roiling Eisenkot’s own opposition bloc. Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and ex-Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman have both rejected any government that relies on explicit support or even abstention from Arab parties to secure a majority. Liberman has gone so far as to urge disaffected hardline members of Netanyahu’s Likud party to defect to the opposition to form a “true right-wing government,” with the most promising opening centered on peeling away Likud lawmakers who oppose Netanyahu’s longstanding concessions to ultra-Orthodox parties, most notably the controversial draft exemptions for seminary (yeshiva) students. On the opposite end of the opposition spectrum, Yair Golan, leader of the left-wing Democrats party, has pushed Eisenkot to embrace a full partnership with Arab parties to permanently oust Netanyahu. In a widely shared social media post Wednesday, Golan wrote, “Netanyahu lost. I know how to count to 120. Sixty-five is more than 55. That’s how Israeli democracy works. Period. The reality must teach us one resounding lesson: We have no future here if we don’t stop being afraid. And if we don’t stop with the racism. We must no longer accept Netanyahu’s racist division between Jewish votes and Arab votes. Anyone who tries to erase the voices of Arab citizens is surrendering to Netanyahu and giving up on Israel.” Another possible outcome being floated by insiders is a so-called “national unity government” that would see the Eisenkot and Netanyahu factions strike a power-sharing deal that completely excludes Arab parties from any governing role. Eitan Tzelgov, a leading expert on Israeli populism and democratic backsliding at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia, framed the choice facing Eisenkot’s change bloc as a stark binary: “govern with the Arab parties, or with Netanyahu.” “Israel is a tribal society, with cohesive right-wing tribes and a shrinking liberal tribe that will need to make a decision,” Tzelgov explained in a note to Common Dreams. “Over the years, Netanyahu and the far right have built an ideological firewall around the Arab parties by presenting any Jewish-Arab collaboration as support for terrorism. The leaders of the change bloc, representing Israel’s liberal camp, now must decide if they are willing to break it. That is the only way to bring about a U-turn from the current government’s policies in Gaza and the West Bank.” Tzelgov cautioned that he was not optimistic the liberal bloc would have the political will to take that step, noting that “a more likely outcome at the moment is a split within the change bloc and collaboration of some of its components with Netanyahu, a result US President Donald Trump reportedly supports.” Joint List chair Yousef Jabareen emphasized the existential stakes of the negotiations, stating, “Anyone who wants to offer a substantive and genuine alternative to Netanyahu’s blood-soaked government will have to talk to us. It’s either the continuation of racism, the continuation of exclusion, and the continuation of supremacy, or a genuine Jewish-Arab partnership.”

Israel’s Tuesday parliamentary election drew the highest voter turnout the nation has recorded since 2001, defying predictions of widespread apathy after years of repeated political deadlock. Yet as vote counting crossed the 85% threshold by Wednesday afternoon, neither incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor his centrist and right-leaning challengers held a clear, unobstructed path to securing the 61 Knesset seats required for a governing majority in the 120-seat legislative body. The most disruptive variable in the post-election calculus comes from two political slates representing Palestinian citizens of Israel: the Joint List and Ra’am, whose unexpected, surging gains delivered them a combined 19 seats. Nearly every established Israeli Jewish political faction has publicly committed to excluding both Arab parties from formal governing coalitions, a red line that complicates every possible path to a 61-seat majority. Early exit polls broadcast at 10pm on election night initially showed former military chief Gadi Eisenkot’s opposition bloc edging ahead of Netanyahu’s longstanding allied faction, leading many political commentators to prematurely declare the end of Netanyahu’s decades-long political career. But as ballots were tallied through the night, it emerged that Netanyahu’s Likud party had emerged as the single largest faction in the Knesset with a projected 26 seats, putting his full allied bloc at 53 total seats, while Eisenkot’s centrist-right opposition coalition stood at just 48. Under Israeli constitutional procedure, Netanyahu will remain in caretaker prime minister until a new governing coalition is formally sworn in, and President Isaac Herzog is widely expected to first task Netanyahu with the 28-day window to assemble a majority, extended by a maximum of 14 additional days if requested, due to Likud’s status as the largest single party. Netanyahu has two plausible, though high-risk, routes to hit the 61-seat threshold. The first relies on luring defectors from far-right factions currently aligned with the opposition, many of whose sitting members are current or former West Bank settlers who have historically aligned with hardline policy priorities Netanyahu has supported. But this path would require a substantial number of opposition MPs to abandon their election promises, a move that carries severe backlash risks for their personal political brands. The second option is forming a national unity government with key opposition figures including Eisenkot’s Yashar faction and Naftali Bennett’s MPs from the Together slate, an outcome that both US President Donald Trump — who formally endorsed Netanyahu ahead of the election — and President Herzog have publicly signaled they prefer. But this unity government scenario would force Netanyahu to oust his most controversial far-right allies: Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, whose radical factions have been core partners in his previous governments, as well as his longstanding ultra-Orthodox allies in the Shas and United Torah Judaism parties. The opposition has campaigned aggressively on enforcing mandatory military conscription for Haredi youth, a policy the ultra-Orthodox parties have spent decades opposing, making their inclusion in any unity government functionally impossible. The unity path faces massive public and political barriers, as Netanyahu’s personal legal scandals and polarizing public image are deeply toxic to most opposition voters; former military chief Benny Gantz infamously destroyed his own political credibility after joining a short-lived unity government with Netanyahu in 2020, a mistake no current opposition leader is eager to repeat. As Assaf David, a leading political analyst at Israel’s Vanleer Institute think tank, explained to Middle East Eye: “If final results confirm Netanyahu’s bloc is in the lead, some opposition factions may calculate that a Netanyahu-led government stripped of Smotrich and Ben Gvir is a better outcome than heading to a new round of elections, where the right-wing bloc will be far more organized and the opposition far less coordinated.” For Eisenkot’s anti-Netanyahu camp, the raw math is even more fraught. While his natural Jewish allies fall well short of a majority, the combined total of all anti-Netanyahu MPs — including the 19 seats held by the two Palestinian slates — adds up to nearly 70 seats. This opens a narrow, high-stakes path for Eisenkot to form a minority government that relies on outside, informal support from the Joint List and Ra’am, without requiring the Arab parties to take formal cabinet positions. But nearly all leading Jewish opposition figures, from Naftali Bennett to Avigdor Lieberman, have publicly ruled out any formal or informal cooperation with the Arab parties, and David warns the scenario carries catastrophic security risks. “Netanyahu will immediately frame this as a hostile takeover of the Israeli government by Arab voters and a tiny minority of Jewish MPs,” David cautioned. “He will incite his most radical supporters to acts of political violence, and I cannot rule out the real risk of an assassination attempt against Eisenkot.” The current deadlock echoes the 2019 political crisis, when two consecutive elections failed to produce a viable 61-seat majority for any faction, forcing repeated trips to the polls. A new round of elections would play heavily to Netanyahu’s advantage, as he would retain his caretaker prime minister status for months of campaigning. Analysts note the opposition’s historic high turnout advantage this cycle is unlikely to be replicated in a re-run: an estimated 67,000 Israeli expats returned home specifically to vote against Netanyahu, and few are expected to make that costly, time-consuming journey a second time. Most notably, Palestinian citizen voter turnout surged to 80% this election, up from just 54% in 2022, with many first-time voters casting ballots to push back against rising state discrimination, the ongoing war in Gaza, and escalating settler violence in the occupied West Bank. David emphasizes this unprecedented mobilization of Arab voters, paired with the expat turnout, is a one-off window for the anti-Netanyahu camp: “Everyone in the opposition bloc knows this is their only shot. Those two turnout boosts will not materialize again in a new election, where the right-wing base will be fully energized to suppress Arab voter turnout. They have no choice but to seize this moment and work with the Arab parties’ outside support to oust Netanyahu.”

Often overlooked in mainstream narratives of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the roughly 2 million Palestinian citizens of Israel represent a distinct, historically rooted community that makes up one-fifth of Israel’s total population. These are the descendants of the 150,000 Palestinian people who avoided expulsion during the 1948 Nakba – the deliberate, campaign of ethnic cleansing carried out by Zionist militias and later Israeli state forces that displaced 80% of historic Palestine’s majority Arab population, destroyed hundreds of villages, and cleared the way for the formal establishment of the Israeli state. Many of those who remained were internally displaced, barred from returning to their homes even as their abandoned land and property was seized by state authorities, turning a once-majority indigenous population into a marginalized minority on their own ancestral land overnight.
For nearly two decades after 1948, this community lived under a harsh, exclusive military regime that imposed movement restrictions, arbitrary curfews, and sweeping bans on political organizing, while Jewish Israeli citizens operated under civilian legal frameworks. One of the most devastating atrocities of this era was the 1956 Kafr Qasim massacre, where Israeli troops acting on secret orders to shoot curfew violators killed 49 unsuspecting Palestinian villagers, including women and children, who were returning home from work unaware the curfew had been moved several hours earlier. Even after military rule was lifted in 1966, state repression persisted: 1976’s Land Day protests against mass state land confiscations in the Galilee saw six Palestinian citizens shot dead by police, a moment that remains a core annual commemoration of the community’s fight for land rights. During the 2000 Second Intifada, 13 Palestinian citizen demonstrators were killed by Israeli security forces during rallies in solidarity with besieged populations in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Systemic discrimination has been codified into law over decades of successive Israeli governments, with Haifa-based Palestinian rights legal center Adalah documenting more than 65 statutes that explicitly or implicitly target Palestinian citizens for unequal treatment. These range from the 1950 Absentees’ Property Law, which seized the assets of displaced Palestinians even for some who held Israeli citizenship, to the 2003 family reunification ban that blocks Palestinian citizens from gaining residency for spouses from the occupied territories, the 2011 community town admissions law that allows majority-Jewish localities to reject Palestinian applicants on grounds of “compatibility with Zionist-Jewish character”, and the 2018 Nation-State Basic Law that enshrines exclusive Jewish national self-determination in Israel, downgrades Arabic from its longstanding official language status, and prioritizes state support for Jewish settlement.
Compounding state and legal discrimination, Palestinian communities are in the grip of a spiraling violent crime crisis that local civil society group the Abraham Initiatives attributes to decades of deliberate under-policing. Though Palestinian citizens make up only 20% of Israel’s population, 50% of the country’s total violent crime impacts their communities, with Israeli police failing to crack down on widespread illegal arms trafficking that community leaders say authorities have long allowed to operate with impunity. The homicide clearance rate for Palestinian victim cases sits at less than 15%, compared to a 65% clearance rate for Jewish Israeli homicide victims, and the death toll has surged from 116 in 2022 to a record 252 in 2025, with most of the victims having no ties to criminal networks.
Across generations, Palestinian citizens have built robust political and grassroots movements to push for full equal rights. Early organizing was severely constrained by military rule, but by the 1970s, parties including Hadash, Balad, Ta’al, and Ra’am had emerged as leading political voices, alongside the cross-partisan High Follow-Up Committee that serves as the community’s extra-parliamentary representative body. For decades, Palestinian-led parties were treated as untouchable political partners by mainstream Jewish Israeli factions, but that longstanding taboo was broken in 2021 when Ra’am joined a national governing coalition, using its four Knesset seats to end Benjamin Netanyahu’s 12-year run as prime minister. Ahead of the 2026 general elections, the reunited Joint List alliance and the separate Ra’am party are projected to win a combined 18 to 20 Knesset seats, a haul that could give the Palestinian citizen community unprecedented kingmaker leverage over coalition formation, and the potential to translate decades of grassroots struggle into tangible policy changes to address historic inequalities. For first-time Palestinian voter Asia Egbaria, that possibility carries profound personal weight: “I want change. I don’t want to be treated like a second- or third-class citizen anymore. That’s all.”

A Wednesday report from The Wall Street Journal reveals that United States authorities have transmitted formal warnings through both diplomatic and military communication channels to multiple Gulf Arab nations, advising them to make contingency preparations for a brief, high-intensity military offensive targeting Iran in the immediate aftermath of the US 3 November midterm elections. This advisory marks the most recent tangible sign that Washington and Tel Aviv are advancing coordinated plans for a fresh wave of strikes on Iranian territory, framed by insiders as a strategy to degrade Tehran’s military and nuclear capabilities and compel the Iranian government to return to formal negotiation tables.
Multiple anonymous officials with direct knowledge of the deployments confirmed to WSJ that US military assets stationed across the Middle East have been actively replenishing ammunition stockpiles, while long-range bomber fleets and tactical fighter jets are completing final operational readiness checks calibrated for imminent strike missions. Additional flight tracking data and two senior defense officials corroborate that a full Patriot missile defense system, equipped with state-of-the-art surveillance radar, ground-based missile launch platforms, and high-velocity interceptor munitions, is being relocated from its home base in Texas to Israel to reinforce the country’s air defense networks. The coming weeks will also see a US Navy aircraft carrier strike group paired with a Marine Corps expeditionary unit join the more than 20 warships already conducting operations across Middle Eastern waters, according to the Journal’s reporting.
These military movements follow a wave of regional drawdown announcements made public last week, when multiple US media outlets confirmed the State Department had ordered an additional round of personnel cuts at American diplomatic outposts across the Middle East, alongside a phased evacuation of some US military personnel from low-priority posts. The Pentagon formally submitted a cost update to US Congress last week, disclosing that the ongoing US-Israeli campaign against Iran, now in its eighth month, had accumulated $47.1 billion in total expenditures as of 16 October – a sharp jump from the $37.5 billion figure previously cited by US Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, with ordnance including bombs, cruise missiles and other munitions accounting for more than 60 percent of the total spending.
While US President Donald Trump has not yet signed off on a final strike authorization, multiple separate intelligence and administration sources indicate he is leaning toward approving a large-scale offensive that would target key Iranian infrastructure and known nuclear development sites. A negotiated diplomatic settlement to replace expanded military action appeared all but unattainable over the weekend, when Iranian officials formally rejected a draft agreement presented by Qatari mediators. A senior Iranian official speaking to Reuters on Wednesday pushed back on Qatari accounts of the mediation process, stating that Doha had never submitted a formal, actionable proposal, and had instead circulated a series of “unacceptable” terms, adding that Tehran would refuse to make any concessions on its nuclear program. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi issued a public warning the same day that any new military incursion would trigger catastrophic ripple effects for the global economy. In a post published to his official X account, Araghchi emphasized that a military misadventure orchestrated by Israel in the Persian Gulf would deliver devastating shocks to international energy markets, a risk that remains a top concern for both natural gas exporting nations and major consumer economies worldwide.
The push for expanded strikes also intersects with domestic political calculations in Israel, where Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has leaned heavily on rhetoric about countering Iranian threats as part of his re-election campaign for the country’s parliamentary polls. With 85 percent of all ballots counted, Netanyahu’s right-wing electoral bloc currently holds only 53 of the 120 total seats in the Knesset, short of a clear governing majority. On Wednesday, as formal coalition negotiations to form a new Israeli government were set to kick off, Netanyahu publicly pledged that he would partner closely with Trump to eliminate what he frames as the “existential threat” posed by Iran. Even Netanyahu’s leading electoral rival, former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, has publicly voiced support for coordinated targeted strikes on Iran paired with tightened economic sanctions. Trump himself has repeatedly stated he would not authorize any new military action against Iran prior to the November midterms, referencing the ongoing campaign’s official codename during a recent Florida rally, where he noted the US could launch “another little Epic Fury” operation in the near future.

On a Monday announcement from the UK Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, 15 senior military commanders affiliated with both Sudan’s rival warring factions — the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) — have been formally designated for stringent punitive measures, including full cross-border travel bans and immediate global asset freezes. The targeted measures are explicitly tied to documented atrocities perpetrated during the brutal 2025 RSF takeover of el-Fasher, a major urban hub in Sudan’s Darfur region, where widespread, systematic mass sexual violence and civilian slaughter was carried out on an unprecedented scale.
UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband emphasized in an official public statement that the new sanctions regime deliberately targets suspected war criminals on both sides of the two-year-long Sudanese civil conflict, which first erupted in April 2023 and has since escalated into the single largest active humanitarian crisis on the global stage. Miliband underscored that independent UK-funded investigative work, conducted one full year after the el-Fasher atrocities first came to light, has confirmed that rival armed groups continue to weaponize both sexual violence (including mass rape of women and minor girls) and deliberate starvation as tools of war against civilian populations across Sudan. He framed these acts as transgressions against shared global humanity, stressing that all perpetrators of such crimes must face formal accountability, and all external state backers that provide military, financial, or logistical support to Sudan’s warring parties must immediately cease all such assistance.
Official timelines confirm that on 26 October 2025, after more than 500 consecutive days of encirclement, the RSF launched a full-scale final offensive to seize control of el-Fasher. The subsequent violence produced the deadliest single massacre recorded across the entire Sudanese conflict to date. Researchers from Yale University’s Humanitarian Research Lab noted that the unprecedented speed and industrial, mass-scale nature of the killings in el-Fasher are comparable only to the full scope of the 1994 Rwandan genocide. Multiple eyewitness accounts from survivors detail that RSF fighters, who have received substantial external backing from the United Arab Emirates (a claim the UAE has consistently and publicly denied), filmed themselves carrying out mass extrajudicial killings of unarmed civilians. Survivors also documented a litany of additional abuses: systematic gang rape of young women and adolescent girls, arbitrary execution of civilian bystanders, forced relocation of surviving civilians to makeshift medical sites to extract their blood, and widespread predatory extortion targeting ordinary residents and their family members.
The UK Foreign Office noted that the new sanctions package is also designed to amplify global awareness of the full scope of the atrocities committed in el-Fasher, ensuring these crimes are not erased from international public record. Notably, the announcement comes amid longstanding public criticism of successive UK governments for failing to hold the UAE — a longstanding close British strategic ally — accountable for its alleged support to the RSF. The United Nations’ official independent fact-finding mission on Sudan has already established reasonable, verified grounds to conclude that private companies and recruitment actors operating out of UAE territory have routed critical supplies to the RSF via transit points in Chad, southeastern Libya, and Bosaso, Somalia. Extensive prior investigative reporting from Middle East Eye has further mapped this shadowy supply network, as well as the use of military bases in Ethiopia to provide covert operational support to RSF forces.

The latest outcome of Israel’s parliamentary elections paints a nuanced portrait of former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political standing: while he did not secure a clear path to a ruling majority, he is far from being fully ousted from power. Netanyahu framed his campaign narrative around two core pillars for Jewish voters: sustaining ongoing military operations and retaining the national state of emergency that took root after the devastating 7 October 2023 Hamas-led attacks. He actively shifted blame for the unprecedented security failure that day away from his own administration, laying full responsibility on Israeli military leadership, while positioning himself as the decisive leader who stepped in to restore safety and elevate national security to levels higher than pre-October 7, a messaging strategy that resonated widely with his base.

Compared to the 2022 Israeli election, Netanyahu and his far-right allies lost significant ground, with their projected bloc falling 8 to 10 seats short of the 61-seat majority required to form a stable government. Critically, however, the so-called “change campaign” opposition bloc also failed to lock in a majority, leaving both major Jewish political camps deadlocked and no side able to form a ruling coalition on its own.

The most transformative, positive development of this election cycle lies in the historic breakthrough of Israel’s Palestinian political factions. The Joint List alliance of Palestinian parties, alongside Mansour Abbas’ more moderate Raam party, are on track to win a combined 19 seats in the 120-seat Knesset, a record high for Palestinian political representation in Israel’s parliament. Palestinian citizens, who make up 20% of Israel’s total population but have long been systematically sidelined and excluded from formal governing coalitions, turned out to vote in unprecedented numbers, deliberately mobilizing to block the inclusion of notoriously racist far-right figures Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich from any future ruling coalition. Even if Netanyahu manages to strike a unity government deal with opposition centrist leader Gadi Eisenkot, the resulting coalition will almost certainly have to exclude the two ultra-nationalist hardliners, marking a clear win for Palestinian voter mobilization.

This election outcome has delivered a stark reality check to Israel’s secular liberal Zionist camp, which previously operated under the false assumption that it could secure a parliamentary majority by leaning into nationalist rhetoric, targeting the ultra-Orthodox community, and aligning closely with military leadership. The results have proven that this camp cannot form a government without the support of Palestinian political parties, forcing it to confront a long-avoided choice: remain trapped in perpetual cycles of Netanyahu-aligned right-wing rule, or abandon long-held anti-Arab hostility to build pragmatic partnerships with Palestinian voters and factions. Analysts note that this shift is unlikely to stem from sudden ideological reckoning over Zionism’s settler-colonial foundations, but rather from cold political necessity, as pragmatic interest-driven realignments have historically triggered major political shifts in Israeli politics.

The election has also laid bare a clear ideological split within Israel’s Palestinian political community. Mansour Abbas and his Raam party have long advocated for a strategy of incremental, pragmatic engagement with Israeli state institutions and Zionist parties to secure tangible material gains for Palestinian citizens, including expanded housing access, improved public services, reduced systemic discrimination, and reduced rampant organized crime that has plagued Palestinian communities for decades. This approach, critics note, requires a degree of deliberate decoupling from the struggles of Palestinians living under occupation in Gaza and the West Bank. By a two-to-one margin, however, Palestinian voters in this election rejected this framework to back the Joint List’s platform, which refuses to abandon its moral and political commitment to the rights of Palestinians in occupied territories and the diaspora. Joint List leader Yousef Jabareen has publicly outlined four non-negotiable conditions for any potential support of a non-Netanyahu government: targeted action to end rampant crime in Palestinian communities, expanded development and legal recognition of underserved Palestinian residential areas, full equal civil rights for Arab citizens of Israel, and a formal, binding process to advance the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.

For the first time in Israeli political history, Palestinian parties hold the decisive kingmaker power that will determine who forms the next government, forcing them to navigate the delicate challenge of advancing their core demands for equality and Palestinian statehood without compromising their national identity or alienating potential centrist Zionist partners. The path ahead remains deeply uncertain: far-right factions aligned with Netanyahu could move aggressively to implement new legal and procedural barriers to suppress Palestinian voting power and prevent this level of Arab political influence from ever being repeated. Alternatively, the secular centrist camp could choose to embrace pragmatic cooperation with Palestinian parties to break the decades-long cycle of right-wing political dominance in Israel.