The kingmakers who could determine Israel’s election

Our verdict

This analysis leans slightly toward the Arab-party and anti-Netanyahu side, mainly through its sourcing (Mekelberg, Cassif, Noy) and evaluative wording such as 'genocidal war on Gaza' and 'taint of October 7'. Its strength is a clear legal timeline and a fair account of the ultra-Orthodox criticism. Readers should note that the Netanyahu camp and the courts are heard only indirectly, and that the 'on social media' headline does not match the body.

Why this lean

Most sources are critical of Netanyahu or are Arab-party figures (Mekelberg, Cassif, Noy). The author uses evaluative labels for the Netanyahu side ('self-styled', 'taint') and states 'genocidal war on Gaza' without attribution. The Netanyahu camp is described mainly through paraphrase and one slogan, with no rebuttal. Countervailing elements include the criticism of the opposition by Mekelberg and the Lapid and Lieberman quotes, and the Netanyahu/Likud line is at least described accurately as an attack strategy.

Framing

The story treats the Arab-led lists' possible role as kingmakers, and the political attacks on them, as the central question, seen largely from the perspective of the Arab parties and their Israeli critics of Netanyahu.

Confidence: Medium — The text looks complete, but it is an analysis piece on a fast-moving election, and some claims (polling, the ultra-Orthodox draft dispute) could not be verified against outside sources in this assessment.

Key Findings

1. 1The Netanyahu camp's position is described mainly through paraphrase ('Likud has repeatedly used hard-hitting attack adverts') and one campaign slogan. There is no Likud or Otzma Yehudi response to the claim that the Arab lists are being used as a campaign target, which weakens the balance of an article about attacks on those lists.
2. 2The article's most quoted analyst, Mekelberg, is cited three times, with lines like 'Netanyahu would work with Ra'am in a heartbeat'. His affiliation is given, but readers are not told his evaluation is an interpretation of motives.
3. 3The author states 'Israel's genocidal war on Gaza' in narrative voice, not as a claim from a named source. This is the article's clearest instance of a contested characterisation presented as fact.
4. 4The headline promises a story about social media, but the article contains no social media analysis. The mismatch suggests the headline was not written from the body.
5. 5The ultra-Orthodox section is balanced in a limited way: it includes Lapid's and Lieberman's criticism of the Shas and UTJ draft and funding record, which is a point the Arab-party sources do not make. It gives no ultra-Orthodox voice.
6. 6Strength: the article explains the legal sequence (petitions, Election Committee vote, Supreme Court reversal, Abu Shehadeh's withdrawal) and reports the 7-2 vote, which lets a reader follow the dispute.

Who gets a voice

• Yossi Mekelberg

  Middle East analyst, Chatham House
  Analyst critical of Netanyahu and the oppositionMain voice
• Ofer Cassif

  Hadash Knesset member, Jewish candidate on the Joint List
  Joint List; says the court decision was politicalMinor voice
• Orly Noy

  Balad candidate
  Joint List; accuses opponents of racismMinor voice
• Likud campaign (slogan)

  Governing party's campaign
  Netanyahu camp; warns of Arab kingmakersMinor voice
• Yair Lapid

  Opposition leader
  Opposition; criticises ultra-Orthodox draft-dodging and fundingMinor voice
• Avigdor Lieberman

  Yisrael Beytenu leader
  Right-wing critic of ultra-Orthodox partiesMinor voice
• Netanyahu camp and Likud (paraphrase)

  Likud-led bloc
  Says opponents depend on Arab-led listsMinor voice
• Mansour Abbas

  Ra'am leader (photo caption only)
  Arab party leader; not quotedMinor voice

Loaded language

Dimension Breakdown

Missing Perspectives

• Likud, Netanyahu or Otzma Yehudi spokespeople: needed to answer the charge that they are using the Arab lists as a campaign target, and to explain the legal grounds of the disqualification petitions.
• Election Committee or Supreme Court reasoning: the article reports outcomes but not the legal arguments, which matter for judging whether Cassif's 'political decision' claim is fair.
• Bennett or Eisenkot camp: their stance on Arab-party support in a coalition is central to the 'kingmakers' question but is not given.
• Ultra-Orthodox leaders: they are described as draft-dodgers and welfare recipients by critics, with no response from their side.
• Jewish Israeli voters who oppose Arab-party involvement in government: their view would show whether the 'taint' and 'racism' framing reflects the wider electorate.

Highlighted Passages

Key Facts

• According to the article, Ra'am and the Joint List are projected to win 13 seats together in the October 27 election (no pollster named).
• The Arab-led parties make up about 20 percent of Israel's population (figure given without a source).
• On October 2, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the disqualification of the Joint List and Ra'am, plus Cassif, by a 7-2 majority.
• On September 23, the Central Elections Committee voted to disqualify both Arab lists and two individual candidates, following petitions by Likud and Otzma Yehudi.
• Ra'am became the first Arab party to enter an Israeli government in 2021, joining the Bennett-Lapid coalition.
• In May, Bennett apologised for going into government with Ra'am (as reported).
• Shas and United Torah Judaism are each polling at about seven or eight seats, per the article.
• Shas and UTJ broke with Likud last year over the failure to legislate an exemption from military draft for ultra-Orthodox students.