Israel heads to the polls with Netanyahu — and its rightward turn — on the ballot

Israelis will vote on October 27 in a national election that could decide Netanyahu’s political future and Israel’s direction. He has led the country through a multi-front regional war since October 7, 2023. Polls show a tight race, while voters remain deeply divided over his leadership and its consequences.

Netanyahu is seeking a new mandate after Israel’s deadliest single attack. His government responded with a relentless Gaza campaign, fighting in Lebanon, and attacks on Iran with US help. Supporters broadly back the war’s aims, but many critics blame Netanyahu for failing to prevent October 7 and for ignoring warnings before the assault.

The result could strengthen or weaken his far-right coalition. His government has expanded West Bank settlements, challenged judicial power, and preserved military-service exemptions for ultra-Orthodox students. Opposition parties are united mainly by opposition to Netanyahu, so the vote is also a personal judgment on a prime minister who has served for more than 19 years.

Hard-right nationalism means politics would place Jewish national and religious priorities above compromise with Palestinians or secular arrangements inside Israel. It favors a stronger state presence in contested territory, tougher security policies, and a more explicitly religious definition of national identity. The article presents the election as a possible turning point in that direction.

The clearest examples are settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank and the growing influence of far-right allies. Settlers armed with the blessing of National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir have attacked Palestinians on their land, with only occasional official pushback. Ultra-Orthodox partners also promote religious priorities, including keeping public transit closed on Saturdays.

A harder-right outcome could reshape Israel’s institutions and social rules. It could reduce pressure for a political compromise, increase religious influence, and weaken limits on settlers or coalition ministers. The article does not predict the election result, but it says the vote may decide whether Israel moves definitively toward hard-right nationalism.

Netanyahu has served as Israel’s prime minister on and off for more than 19 years. The article calls him Israel’s longest-serving prime minister and notes that he turns 77 on October 21. His longevity gives him unmatched political experience, but it also makes him the central target of public anger and loyalty.

His personal image shapes how many voters approach the election. Political scientist Alon Yakter says people either hate or adore Netanyahu, making emotional feelings about him the first question in understanding their vote. Netanyahu’s American-raised background and blistering English-language speeches also contrast with rival Gadi Eisenkot’s quieter style and halting English.

That reputation carries both strength and risk. Netanyahu can rally a devoted base around security and war leadership, yet opponents connect him directly to the failure to prevent October 7. He also faces corruption charges and criticism over judicial reforms. The election therefore tests not only policies, but whether voters still trust Netanyahu himself.

Netanyahu’s coalition includes far-right nationalists and ultra-Orthodox Jewish parties that were once considered politically unacceptable. Their influence matters because they can determine government policy, even though Netanyahu is personally secular. Together, they push Israel toward a more religious-nationalist definition of Jewish statehood.

Itamar Ben Gvir, the far-right National Security Minister, is linked in the article to settlers who have attacked Palestinians on West Bank lands. The government has also ramped up settlements. Ultra-Orthodox allies promote religious priorities, including keeping public transit closed on Saturdays, and Netanyahu has allowed religious students to remain exempt from military service.

These demands create sharp social and political tensions. Exemptions anger reservists who have served multiple tours during the war. Opposition leader Naftali Bennett has promised to end them, while Netanyahu’s coalition depends on the groups receiving them. After the election, their influence could expand or face pressure from voters demanding equal service and a less religious state.

The Gaza Strip has roughly 2.1 million people, a widely established estimate; the supplied article does not state the figure. Population size matters because any debate about Gaza’s future involves the lives, homes, and political status of a very large civilian population. It also makes reconstruction, security, and governance questions far larger than a narrow battlefield decision.

The article describes Israel’s campaign as reducing Gaza to rubble after October 7. It does not explain who would govern Gaza, how reconstruction would happen, or what political future residents would have. The key mechanism is scale: destruction and control affect millions of people and can shape regional politics, Israel’s international standing, and the conflict’s next phase.

The election could influence that future indirectly through Israel’s leadership and coalition. Netanyahu has pursued the war while his far-right allies gain influence. The article says the campaign has brought Israel pariah status in many once-friendly Western countries. Any post-election policy toward Gaza would therefore carry major humanitarian, political, and diplomatic consequences.

A new government could alter three major areas: settlements, judicial power, and military-service rules. These issues matter because they determine how much authority courts retain, how Israel manages the occupied West Bank, and whether citizens share wartime obligations. The election may therefore change both state institutions and everyday relations between social groups.

Netanyahu’s government has ramped up settlements and allowed far-right allies greater influence. It also tried to rein in the judiciary, which is examining corruption charges against him. Meanwhile, Netanyahu has allowed ultra-Orthodox religious students to remain exempt from military service, angering reservists who have completed multiple tours during the war.

A government led by Netanyahu could continue these policies, especially if his far-right and ultra-Orthodox allies remain powerful. An opposition-led government could face pressure to reverse or limit them. Naftali Bennett has promised to end all military-service exemptions. The article does not establish which side will win, but it presents the election as a decision about Israel’s institutional and social future.

A state’s monopoly on the use of force means the government, rather than private groups, controls legitimate coercion. Police and military forces may act under state authority, while armed civilians cannot independently impose power or attack others. The principle matters because it connects public safety to accountable government and equal enforcement of law.

The article applies this idea to the occupied West Bank. Settlers armed with the blessing of far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir have attacked Palestinians on their lands, with authorities pushing back only occasionally. Political scientist Gideon Rahat says a state without this monopoly is a failed state. The mechanism is weakened authority: private violence begins competing with official institutions.

This issue could grow after the election if far-right allies gain more influence or if settlement expansion continues. It affects Palestinians facing attacks and Israelis deciding who controls security. It also tests whether the government can enforce law consistently, rather than allowing political allies or armed settlers to act with limited consequences.