Netanyahu’s Likud alleges election interference after losing parliamentary majority
publishers 28articles 33first reported 27 Oct, 07:40 UTCdeveloping since 27 Oct · 6 editions
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party alleged that Arab-led parties stole this week’s legislative election through fraud and possible foreign assistance, after final results showed Netanyahu’s bloc losing its parliamentary majority. Israeli police and election officials said they had no evidence supporting claims of a stolen election.
Results released Thursday gave Netanyahu’s bloc 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, while his main opposition won 48 and Arab-led parties secured 19 following unusually high turnout in Arab communities. The results must still be certified and submitted to Israel’s president next Wednesday.
Likud accused the Ra’am party and the Joint List of using bribery, threats and other illegal methods to mobilize voters. Party figures also alleged foreign funding, with Israeli media reporting accusations involving Qatar. Qatar denied the claims, calling them “ridiculous and dangerous.”
Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg, who chairs the Central Election Committee, asked the Shin Bet security agency to investigate after receiving what he described as serious suspicions of improper foreign intervention. He said he could not verify the allegations. The Jerusalem Post reported that Mossad had joined the inquiry.
Police said election day involved relatively few integrity-related irregularities and that they possessed neither investigative evidence nor intelligence supporting Likud’s claims. Dean Livne, the election committee’s acting director general, said officials had received claims rather than evidence and had no basis for calling the election stolen. He added that the investigation would not affect the final results or concern any particular population group.
HOW THIS STORY WAS MADE
Written from 8 articles, 2 with the publisher's own text; 8 independent newsrooms once syndicated copies count as one; this version written 96 h after the record first saw the story; the editor kept it as written.
- Publishers
- 28
- Source articles
- 33
- Given to the writer
- 8, 2 with the article's own text
- Independent newsrooms
- 8
- This version written
- 96 h after the record first saw the story
- Second model (editor)
- kept as written
- Publication gate
- passed
- Human review
- none
WHAT THE EDITOR DID
The second model checked the writer's draft against the same sources and published it as written.
Written by a language model from the sources above, then checked by a second model that may only cut, attribute or correct. How it works →