Benjamin Netanyahu's biggest challenger gears up for high-stakes election

Gadi Eisenkot is Benjamin Netanyahu's chief challenger and the leader of the Yashar party. He previously served as chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces. His campaign argues that Israel needs unity, international partnership, and a different approach to national leadership.

Eisenkot attacked Netanyahu over alleged corruption, the failure to hold an inquiry into October 7, and growing internal polarisation. At a Tel Aviv rally, he warned that Netanyahu would use “any trick, lie or spin” to win again. His supporters portrayed him as a father figure who listens to wounded communities rather than aggressively marketing himself.

His challenge matters because polls showed many voters backing anti-Netanyahu parties, while Likud might not win enough seats to form a majority government. Eisenkot is also drawing support from northern residents displaced by Hezbollah fire. The election takes place on October 27, and his campaign frames the choice as partnership versus isolation.

Netanyahu used several warnings to make security the central issue in the campaign's final days. He said Iran's nuclear weapons could create a “second Holocaust” and argued that Israel might face economic sanctions from an increasingly hostile international community. He also warned that Iran and its proxies could attack to disrupt the election.

After two soldiers were killed at a Hebron checkpoint, Netanyahu promised one of the biggest West Bank offensives since 1967. Israeli forces made arrests and forced more than 2,500 people from their homes. He later posted an AI-generated image of a nuclear blast hitting a city widely understood to be Tel Aviv.

Netanyahu told voters that choosing a leader unable to stop Iran's nuclear program could bring catastrophe. He warned Iran that Israel would deliver “disproportionately severe blows.” Opponents said he had gone off the rails. The IDF chief of staff reportedly feared the rhetoric could trigger a dangerous miscalculation before voting.

The attack at a military checkpoint in Hebron killed two Israel Defense Forces soldiers. It became a major trigger for Netanyahu's final campaign security push. He used the incident to promise a large Israeli offensive in the West Bank and to present his government as essential for keeping Israel safe.

Israeli security forces responded with multiple arrests and a forced displacement operation. More than 2,500 people were moved out of their homes. Many of the buildings were subsequently bulldozed. These actions expanded the consequences far beyond the original shooting and intensified the political and security stakes.

The operation mattered during an election because Netanyahu connected military action with his argument for strong leadership. His opponents criticised his wider record, including his failure to hold an inquiry into October 7. The article does not state what further action would follow, but the election was scheduled for October 27.

Israel's election determines whether Netanyahu's Likud party and its allies can assemble a majority government. A majority is important because it allows a bloc of parties to support a governing coalition. Without enough seats, Netanyahu may remain the leading politician but still lack the support needed to govern effectively.

The article says polls showed a majority of voters choosing either Jewish or Arab anti-Netanyahu parties. They also suggested Likud could fail to secure enough seats for a majority government. That result would create pressure for rival parties to cooperate and try to form an alternative government.

The immediate outcome would therefore be political uncertainty rather than an automatic change of prime minister. Netanyahu's opponents are campaigning around alleged corruption, the missing October 7 inquiry, and Israel's growing isolation. The election takes place on October 27. The article does not specify which opposition parties could form a coalition or whether they would succeed.

A “bypass economy” was Netanyahu's proposed way for Israel to keep operating around possible international sanctions. He raised the idea while portraying Israel as increasingly isolated by hostile foreign governments. When asked whether he meant cryptocurrency, he agreed and also mentioned blockchain technology.

The mechanism he suggested was digital finance: cryptocurrency or blockchain might theoretically help transactions continue outside normal economic channels. But the Bank of Israel issued a rare rebuke. It said cryptocurrencies could not serve as a route to bypass sanctions. It urged leaders to preserve economic relations with Israel's main trading partners instead.

The central bank said the better policy was preventing sanctions and limiting their negative impact, not trying to evade them after they arrived. Netanyahu's comments drew criticism from political rivals and economists. The article does not identify any sanctions already imposed. It presents the proposal as a response to possible future pressure from an increasingly hostile international community.

The article places the security conflict in the context of Israel's occupation of Palestinian Territory in 1967. That reference matters because Netanyahu's response to the Hebron checkpoint attack was a threatened major offensive in the West Bank. The occupation therefore forms part of the political background to the security measures described.

The concrete example is the operation that followed the attack. Israeli forces made multiple arrests and forced more than 2,500 people from their homes. Many buildings were later bulldozed. The article connects these actions with a territory whose status and control have already drawn strong criticism, describing the occupation as illegal.

That history also shapes the election debate. Netanyahu presented force as protection, while opponents said his government was polarising Israel and isolating it from the world. The article does not detail international legal arguments or later negotiations. It does show how military action in the West Bank, international condemnation, and claims of isolation are closely linked in the campaign.

Fear of external threats can reshape an election by making security feel more urgent than other issues. Leaders may gain support when they present themselves as the only people able to protect the country. Netanyahu used warnings about Iran, sanctions, and attacks to argue that voters faced grave consequences if they chose the wrong leader.

That focus can also affect accountability. Netanyahu's opponents criticised him for not taking responsibility for October 7 and for avoiding an inquiry. Yet security rhetoric may redirect attention toward enemies and away from questions about government performance. The article shows this tension through rival claims about safety, responsibility, isolation, and national unity.

The danger is not only electoral. Netanyahu warned of an Iranian or proxy attack, while the IDF chief of staff reportedly feared that political leaders were steering Israel toward miscalculation with Iran. A sudden response before voting could produce immediate escalation. The article gives no outcome, but the election was scheduled for October 27.