Gantz’s post-election theme was repair of the divisions in Israeli society that Netanyahu has cynically fanned, not least against Arab citizens, who constitute a little over 20 percent of the Israeli population.

That well-worn Netanyahu tactic did not work this time. Arabs voted in large numbers and their Joint List, an alliance of four parties, emerged as the third-largest political force with 12 or 13 seats. Ayman Odeh, its leader, said its aim had been to “stop a right-wing government headed by Netanyahu” and demonstrate that “there is clearly a price for incitement.” Mission accomplished, it seems.

Netanyahu will now cite this strong showing in his relentless Doomsday scenario: Without him, all hell will be loosed upon Israel in the form of an Arab takeover. King Bibi cannot abide opposition, which is what democracy delivers. He will not go easily, that is certain. As in many things these days, Israeli politics often look like prologue for the United States.

Yitzhak Rabin, at the time of the Oslo accords, did govern with external support from Arab parties, but the consensus against bringing them into government is strong. This barrier cannot, however, endure forever if Israel is to be a democracy of equal citizens. Change in this area will be slow and depend on the wider context of Israeli-Palestinian relations.

In his misleadingly titled book of almost two decades ago, “A Durable Peace: Israel and its Place Among the Nations,” a rehash of a book published in 1993, Netanyahu called the West Bank, or Judea and Samaria as he puts it, “the heartland of Israel.” Withdrawal from it would leave Israel as a “truncated ghetto-state squeezed onto a narrow shoreline.” He argued that the Palestinian people didn’t exist, or were a very recent invention, and that the Arab campaign against Israel was not a “negotiable grievance” but a “basic opposition to the very existence of Jewish sovereignty.”

Netanyahu never wavered in these beliefs, comparing Rabin to Chamberlain, progressively trashing the Oslo peace accords, relentlessly attacking any Palestinian leader, like Salam Fayyad, who did see Palestinians’ plight as a “negotiable grievance.” He never evolved, in the way that Rabin or Sharon or Begin did with the responsibilities of office and the beckoning of history. It has been a sinister, brilliant, empty performance, abetted by the hopeless divisions and fecklessness of the Palestinian national movement.

If Israelis have indeed, at last, brought down the curtain on the Netanyahu show, they will have saved not only the last faint chance of a negotiated peace settlement with the Palestinians, but also their precious democracy itself. That would be quite something — and the angry patriarch in his labyrinth will fight it to the last.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.