Israel’s two predominantly Arab electoral lists say they are ready to cooperate with opponents of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the October 27 election, potentially helping determine whether he remains in office. Their leaders, Mansour Abbas and Jabareen, have both expressed willingness to support an alternative under certain conditions. Their positions point towards a possible parliamentary opening for Netanyahu’s principal rival, Gadi Eisenkot, while revealing a distinction between the Arab parties: readiness to support a government does not necessarily mean willingness to join it.

Arab Israelis, also known as Palestinian citizens of Israel, account for about 21 percent of the country’s population. They will be represented in the election by Raam and the Joint List, whose eventual seat totals could help Eisenkot assemble a majority in the 120-member parliament. His bloc is polling neck and neck with Netanyahu’s. That close contest gives the two lists potential influence over the formation of a government, although the extent of that influence will depend on the seats they win.

Both leaders describe the removal of Netanyahu’s government, which they characterise as racist, as a shared objective. Their willingness to cooperate with the opposition comes as Israel’s shift to the right places pressure on the Arab minority’s sense of belonging. For voters seeking to move the country away from the far right, support for these lists offers a possible route to influence through an opposition alliance. The leaders’ statements, however, set out a conditional political direction rather than an agreement to enter government.

Read more: Costs of Trump’s foreign policy put Republicans under midterm pressure

Abbas leads Raam, the Hebrew acronym for United Arab List, a moderate Islamist party with experience of working alongside Netanyahu’s opponents. In 2021, he agreed to join their short-lived coalition, making Raam the first Arab party to enter an Israeli government. That precedent distinguishes his approach from support confined to parliament. It also provides background to his current readiness to cooperate with Eisenkot’s bloc: participation in a coalition would not be a new departure for his party, even if the conditions remain central.

Abbas rejects the idea that he can freely choose between the competing blocs. He has ruled out joining a coalition with Netanyahu and identifies partnership with Eisenkot’s bloc as his only option. His potential leverage therefore rests on helping an alternative government take shape, not on offering support to either side. The distinction matters in assessing the election arithmetic: the two Arab-majority lists may be important to a majority, but Abbas’s stated position limits the direction in which Raam’s support could go.

For the 52-year-old former dentist, entering politics was connected to concerns within Arab-Israeli society. Abbas said he entered politics to confront the violent crime affecting the community, a problem that many Arab Israelis attribute in part to police inaction. His emphasis on influence reflects an ambition to bring community priorities into government decision-making. Opposition to Netanyahu is therefore accompanied by a domestic objective, rather than being presented simply as a preference between rival leaders or competing parliamentary blocs.

Read more: U.S. reduces embassy staffing as warnings of Iranian threats intensify

Jabareen, a 54-year-old university professor specialising in human rights, outlined a different form of cooperation after a campaign rally in Nazareth. He said the Joint List could offer a “safety net” for a government replacing Netanyahu and was prepared to “cooperate with opposition parties”. At the same time, he made clear that he did not envisage a government the list could join in the near future. His position leaves room for parliamentary backing without committing the party to membership of an opposition-led administration.

The distinction between the parties’ approaches is significant for what an opposition victory might produce. Raam’s record includes direct participation in government; Jabareen’s proposal centres on support from outside it. Either approach could matter to Eisenkot’s ability to secure a majority, depending on the result. Neither leader has offered unconditional backing. Jabareen stressed that his party had demands, underscoring that a shared desire to replace Netanyahu does not by itself resolve the terms on which the opposition could obtain support.

Among Arab Israelis interviewed, dissatisfaction with the government was accompanied by a desire for moderation and relief from violence. Ziad Mansour, a 50-year-old barber, called for “a good, moderate government, one that treats its people and its country well”. He added: “No wars, problems, violence and all these things. We’ve had enough.” His comments place the parties’ coalition calculations alongside concerns about security and treatment by the state, rather than electoral positioning alone.

The October 27 vote will establish whether the two lists win enough seats to help Eisenkot secure a parliamentary majority. Their leaders have signalled a willingness to cooperate, but the result and their conditions will shape whether that leads to Raam participating in government or the lists providing support from outside. With the leading blocs closely matched, the Arab-majority parties could have a consequential role in Netanyahu’s political future, even while differing over how closely they would attach themselves to an alternative administration.