What to know about the Israeli elections as Netanyahu faces a battle for survival

This election is a survival test because Netanyahu is being judged after the October 7 attacks, the deadliest day in Israel’s history. Critics say he avoided responsibility for intelligence and security failures. His opponents want voters to decide whether he represents safety or a government that failed to prevent catastrophe.

The contest also threatens Netanyahu personally. He faces domestic charges of fraud, breach of trust and bribery. The article says his political power has helped him delay those cases. Critics therefore accuse him of seeking office partly to avoid prison, an allegation he rejects as a politically motivated witch-hunt.

Netanyahu has survived earlier defeats and led Israel for nearly 19 of the past 30 years. Yet his party is neck and neck with Gadi Eisenkot. A loss could bring an independent inquiry, remove Netanyahu’s political privileges and sharply alter Israel’s direction on security, war and accountability.

Gadi Eisenkot is a former Israel Defense Forces chief of staff, aged 66, who served in Netanyahu’s war cabinet during the opening months of the conflict. That background gives him direct military experience and credibility on the central question facing voters: how Israel should respond to continuing security threats.

Eisenkot has turned that experience into a challenge to Netanyahu. He criticizes strategic failures and supports a long-term ceasefire. He also backs an independent commission to investigate the October 7 attacks, a demand Netanyahu has opposed. His campaign therefore connects security expertise with demands for accountability.

The result is a direct contrast. Netanyahu presents himself as the leader who expanded the war to defend Israel. Eisenkot argues that strategic failures require a different course and has promised to remove Hamas from power within 18 months. Their parties are neck and neck, making Eisenkot Netanyahu’s strongest rival.

The October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks killed 1,195 people. The article identifies that day as the deadliest in Israel’s history. The scale of the deaths transformed the election into more than a routine contest, because nearly every Israeli household has been affected by the crisis that followed.

The attacks also resulted in 251 people being taken into Gaza as hostages. Those hostages became central to arguments over the government’s priorities. Critics accuse Netanyahu of putting the military campaign against Hamas ahead of rescuing them, while supporters view his war policy as necessary to defend Israel.

The human toll still shapes the country’s political mood. It triggered three years of war across multiple fronts and left widespread grief and insecurity. Voters are therefore weighing security, accountability and hostage policy together, making the election a referendum on Netanyahu’s conduct before and after October 7.

Netanyahu’s criminal cases are part of the election’s personal stakes. He faces domestic charges of fraud, breach of trust and bribery. He denies wrongdoing and calls the allegations a politically motivated witch-hunt, but the cases remain an important reason critics describe the election as a fight for his freedom.

The key mechanism is political power. The article says Netanyahu’s grip on office has given him privileges that allowed him to drag out the proceedings. Those protections could change if voters remove him. Critics therefore accuse him of running for re-election to stay out of jail, though that charge is political criticism, not an established legal conclusion.

A defeat would not automatically decide the cases. It could, however, remove the leverage and protections that have slowed them. Netanyahu would then face the legal process with less control over the political environment, while a new government could pursue accountability over October 7 more aggressively.

The article identifies military conscription as an election issue but does not explain the Haredi question. Haredi, or ultra-Orthodox, Jewish men have traditionally received exemptions or deferments from military service while studying Torah full time. That arrangement has become politically explosive as Israel faces prolonged war and demands more soldiers.

The core dispute is about equal burden-sharing. Supporters of exemptions say religious study is central to Haredi society and should be protected. Critics say eligible men should serve like other Jewish citizens, especially when families and reservists carry the costs of multiple fronts. Court rulings and government attempts to change the arrangement have intensified the conflict.

The issue also affects governing power. Haredi parties are important allies in Netanyahu’s political camp, so changing exemptions could threaten his coalition. Voters are therefore weighing military needs, religious identity and political stability. The election may determine whether exemptions are preserved, narrowed or replaced with a broader service framework.

Israel’s national election is generally open to Israeli citizens aged 18 and older, wherever they live, including Palestinian-Arab citizens of Israel. The article notes that Palestinian-Israeli citizens make up 20% of Israel’s population and can vote. Their parties are calling for restraint toward Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.

Most Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza cannot vote in this election because they are not Israeli citizens. They live under different political authorities and are not included in Israel’s national voter roll. This is different from Palestinian citizens of Israel, who have citizenship and participate in national elections.

That divide shapes the election’s representation. Palestinian-Israeli voters can influence Israeli governments, but most Palestinians directly affected by Israeli actions in the West Bank and Gaza cannot choose Israel’s lawmakers. The article highlights that Palestinian-Israeli voters are also focused on organized crime and rising violence in their own communities.

The article does not explain proportional representation, but Israel uses a nationwide proportional system. Voters choose party lists rather than a single constituency candidate. Parties receive parliamentary seats broadly in line with their share of the vote, provided they clear the legal entry threshold.

The key mechanism is fragmentation. A party can finish first without winning more than half the seats. Several parties may each hold smaller blocs, including religious, right-wing, centrist, left-wing and Palestinian-led parties. The leader who can assemble support from enough blocs is best placed to form a government.

That is why coalition bargaining is normally essential. Partners negotiate over policy, budgets and ministerial posts, and a coalition can collapse if support disappears. In this election, security, military service, Gaza, the economy and Netanyahu’s legal troubles could determine which parties cooperate. The result may therefore depend as much on alliances after voting as on the largest party’s finish.