The results of the early Knesset elections that had taken place on January 22 were published on January 24, and have convincingly demonstrated the polarity of views in modern Israeli society. Analysts have been talking about serious transformations happening before our eyes in the political structures of the State of Israel.

The counting of the votes for the Knesset elections was over at about 2 PM on January 24, and the results are as follows:

The ruling right-wing party Yisrael Beitenu won the most votes, and can count on 31 seats in the Knesset out of 120. The left-wing party Yesh Atid (“There is a Future”), headed by the photogenic journalist Yair Lapid, came second, even though these elections were its debut – and a very successful one, at that: 19 people from the party's list may enter the parliament. The third place was taken by the “traditional” left-wing Avodah party, headed by Sheli Yakhimovich, won 15 mandates. 12 mandates were won by the nationalistic party Beit Yehudi of Naftali Bennett, supported mostly by the settlers of Judea and Samaria. 11 Knesset deputies will come from the ultra-religious Shas party, supported by the Sephards (Jews of heritage from the Eastern countries). 7 more mandates were won by the Yahadut HaTorah party – representatives of the religious sector that are oriented first and foremost towards ultra-orthodox Ashkenazi (Jews of European and North American heritage). 6 deputies each will be taken by Tzipi Livni'a Hatnuah party and the more radical left-wing Meretz party. Ra'am-Ta'al and Balad, representing the Arabic sector of Israeli society, have 4 and 3 mandates repectively. The interest of Israeli Arabs are also represented significantly by the Hadash (the Communist party), which also won 4 mandates. Kadima, the moderate left party headed by Shaul Mofaz which had not so long ago been at the helm of Israeli society, passed the vote threshold with some effort, and will seemingly be represented by 2 deputies. Of the political forces obviously out of the running, the radical settler party Otzma LeYisrael was closest to passing the threshold. The steadily liberal party Ole Yarok, famous mostly for its promise to legalize soft drugs, won over 1% of the votes.

The formal winner was Likud Beytenu – the joint list of moderate right parties Likud, headed by Acting Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and Yisrael Beytenu, led by USSR expatriate Avigdor Lieberman, Minister of Foreign Affairs since 2009.

This was not an unexpected victory – all preliminary polls showed that Binyamin Netanyahu had a good chance for one more term in the Prime Minister's seat. Indeed, if the predictions were different, the leader of the government would have been unlikely to initiate these early elections. But if the head of state thought to improve his own positions in the Knesset, he had been mistaken in his expectations. The result of the elections can in no way be seen as a convincing victory by the ruling partyu.

First of all, in the previous elections of 2009, 11 more seats were taken cumulatively by the two parties which had cooperated in these elections. It had been obvious that an alliance with Yisrael Beitenu would reduce the number of votes given to the ruling party, but Netanyahu had been ready to take this step for tactical reasons. Thus, Lieberman, who slowly gained in popularity despite his radical rhetoric (or, perhaps, because of it), was no longer any competition to the Prime Minister in the right wing. But it is unlikely that any analysts had predicted that Likud's representation would be cut down by almost a third, from 27 seats to 20 (which is Likud's quota of those who passed from the joint list made with Yisrael Beitenu). Sources near the Prime Minister say that the head of state had been quite unsatisfied with the results his party had achieved, and the campaign office is trying to decide who is responsible for the ineffective campaign at this very moment.

However, the head of the government has a different, perhaps even more serious problem. In a parliamentary republic it is not enough to secure the relative majority. To form a government, the winning party must ensure the support of other parties, which will together form a full parliamentary majority. It is enough to say that the formal victor of the previous elections in 2009 was the moderate left Kadima, but it was unable to find an agreement with the other parties represented in the Knesset, which allowed Likud to form a coalition based on moderate right, nationalistic and ultra-religious parties.

This time the representation of the “right” block lost several mandates. Just yesterday, it had been speculated that the mandates would be spread evenly between the blocks – 60 deputies to 60. But this morning introduced a correction, and at the time this article is being written, it is presupposed that the (nominally) right will be represented by 61 deputy, and the (nominally) left by 59 deputies, including representatives of the Arabic sector.

The reliance upon such an insignificant majority makes the coalition unstable and allows even the smallest party of the coalition – or even separate members of the parliament – to manipulate the situation.

At the same time, the internal and external challenges that Israel faces today are quite serious and demand an effective and able government that bases itself on a consensus within Israeli society. These challenges include the official status recently provided by the UN General Assembly for the self-declared Palestinian statehood, and the nuclear threat of Iran, and the new unstable reality of the Near East after the “Arabic Spring,” which has considerably strengthened the role of Islamists in social and political life. No fewer problems exist within Israel itself: economic problems, of which, importantly, a noticeable social segregation and the growth of prices have ensured the growing support of the left-wing populists. This is the major reason for the success of the new arrival at the elections, the Yesh Atid party. The heatedness of the debates around the ratio of the religious to the secular in Israel allows many politicians to talk about the impossibility of further preserving the status quo, which has not satisfied anyone for a long time. Debate around the cancellation of the draft delay for yeshiva students had been one of the causes for the disintegration of the previous coalition.

In this case, it would be logical for Binyamin Netanyahu, who is obviously counting on continuing his work as Prime Minister, to propose the creation of a broad “national consensus” coalition not only to his “natural” allies from the right wing (who are also, as is important to remember, his competition – it is obvious that the success of the “settler” Jewish Home party had been achieved at the expense of the decline of support for Likud). The leader of the populist left Yesh Atid party, Yair Lapid, who had wisely described his program as vaguely as possible during the elections, has already expressed his readiness to enter a coalition led by Netanyahu.

This union between adherents of the moderate right and a party that positions itself as left-wing is not as paradoxical as it may seen. The time when the answer to the Palestine question proposed by a party was seen as the defining criterion of whether it is left or right – which left a very narrow margin for consensus between the two camps – seems to have passed. Almost all of the large-scale participants of Israeli political life have seemed to come to terms with the idea of two states for two people to be the only viable solution to the Israeli-Palestine conflict. However, the mere declaration of dedication to this idea means nothing in practice, at the very least because Israel has no partner in these negotiations. Palestine has for many years been practically divided into two enclaves headed by feuding groups. Only the UN seems to think that the President of the Palestinian National Administration in Ramalla actually represents anyone. This means that the discussion of the Palestinian question is slowly falling off the agenda, and the defining features of the Israel political left and the Israel political right are becoming more and more similar to the differences between the two groups in the rest of the world, such as positions on the purely economical matters of taxes, social guarantees and the state regulation of the economy.

It is the necessity of finding solutions to long-standing difficult social and economic problems that might rally a new coalition. As far as can be seen today, Netanyahu and Liberman are inclining themselves towards an alliance with Lapid. Of course, an alliance with the party that came second in the elections will cost Likud and Yisrael Beitenu many offices. It would be good for the right-wing if Yesh Atid would take responsibility for the post difficult part – the social and economical block, which would, in fact, coincide with the expectations of the electorate. However, Lapid seems to lean towards taking the Minister of Foreign affairs office. This seems to be acceptable both for Netanyahu and even for Lieberman, whose radical rhetoric was not quite palatable for the USA, which are the main strategic partner of Israel and the voucher for the support of Israel in the UN Security Council. Lapid's words about the necessity of renewing negotiations with the Palestinians, which mean nothing in practice, are like a breath of fresh air for the White House.

Of course, the ruling coalition will attempt to attract Bennett's “The Jewish Home” party, as they are yet another victor of the elections that has satisfied the popular demand for a right-wing populist party with a vague ideology. Besides, it would also be important for Netanyahu, a consummate master of building an administrative system through checks and balances, to keep Shas in the coalition. However, the negotiations with the Sephard ultra-orthodoxes will not be easy. First of all, they are used to having the Minister of Internal Affairs post as their own, which is obviously attractive both for Lieberman, considering his forced resignation from the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Bennett. Besides that, Shas' agenda on the questions it “specializes” in – defending the traditional place of religion in society – is quite different from the positions proposed by the more successful potential participants of the coalition.

Thus, the alliance of nationalists who are either weakly religious or not religious at all and the moderate right with left-wing populists will mean the formation of a secular, even somewhat anti-clerical wing of the coalition. And this seems to fall in line with the expectations of, if not the majority, then still of a significant part of Israeli society, which expects not only solutions to social and economic problems from the new government, but answers to such questions as the drafting of ultra-Orthodox Jews into the army, a simplification of the official state giyur (conversion to Judaism) procedure, a partial work permit for shops and the public transit system on Saturdays, or even the introduction of the currently absent civil (nonreligious) marriage institution. A long overdue reform of the relationship between the state and religion may become the most important result of these elections.