Two Western outlets read the same Israeli count and reach opposite verdicts

Israelis voted on Tuesday 27 October for all 120 seats of the 26th Knesset, and by Wednesday evening the partial count had settled into a shape both blocs could claim. Ynetnews reported the Netanyahu bloc at 53 seats, Gadi Eisenkot’s opposition bloc at 48 and the Arab parties at 19, with 85.6 percent of votes and 93 percent of polling stations counted. The Jerusalem Post gave the same 53 and 48 at “close to five million votes.” Haaretz had the Netanyahu bloc at 54 when 70 percent was in, and reported the Central Elections Committee beginning to count double-envelope ballots — absentee, soldier, diplomatic and hospital votes. Al Jazeera, at more than 76 percent counted, described a “slight lead” short of a majority. These are snapshots, not a result; final figures were expected Thursday 29 October.

CNN’s Wednesday live blog was headlined “Netanyahu and rival face tough battle for power with most votes counted” and told readers that with more than 85 percent of ballots in, “Israel seems set for a political deadlock.” Axios, from Tel Aviv and at the identical 85 percent, opened: “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s electoral coalition opened a sizable lead over Gadi Eisenkot’s opposition bloc.” Both sentences are arithmetically defensible. Deadlock is what you get measuring 53 against the 61 needed for a majority. A sizable lead is what you get measuring 53 against 48 — a comparison available only if the Arab parties' 19 seats sit outside the field of play. Yair Golan, chairman of The Democrats, made the alternative explicit, telling reporters that Netanyahu’s bloc had lost because the opposition reaches 65 with the Arab parties included, according to a Jerusalem Post paraphrase.

The Israeli press put the surge where Western outlets did not: in the headline. Ynetnews carried the number. The Jerusalem Post wrote that Arab parties “skyrocket.” The URL of Haaretz’s Wednesday live blog reads “arab-parties-at-historic-high,” and the paper ran an editorial arguing Israel’s opposition should form a government with Arab parties, alongside an item headlined “Ignoring Arab Voters Is a Self-Inflicted Wound for Israel’s Liberal Bloc.” Arab News in Riyadh led its homepage with “Netanyahu, Eisenkot stake rival claims to lead Israel after deadlocked vote” and a bullet stating flatly that opponents appear to have a parliamentary majority. CNBC, reporting bond and shekel falls, was the Western outlet in this sample that carried the turnout politics highest, noting that Netanyahu and his far-right coalition partners had warned of strong Arab participation, “drawing accusations of racism from opponents.”

Assessment: Neither CNN nor Axios got a number wrong. The choice being made is prior to the numbers: whether a bloc of 19 seats elected by Palestinian citizens of Israel is a potential coalition partner or a spectator. Israeli papers are arguing that question openly, because for them it is a live decision with a name attached — Golan’s, Haaretz’s editorial board’s. Western desks tend to resolve it silently, by writing a two-man race, which lands as neutrality while importing one side’s premise. Watch for the same move in coverage of President Isaac Herzog’s consultations: he told party leaders, via Axios, that another election round must be avoided. Whether the 19 are counted determines whether that is even necessary.