Israel elections 2026: Who is Gadi Eisenkot? If Netanyahu loses, will he stop Iran and Gaza wars? His stance explained

Gadi Eisenkot is a former Israel Defense Forces chief of staff and a relative newcomer to politics. He served under Netanyahu from 2015 to 2019, but now leads a rival alliance challenging Netanyahu’s Likud party and right-wing partners. Polls described the race as extremely close.

Eisenkot brings military authority without sharing Netanyahu’s political style. He is reserved, media-shy, and known for direct, structured answers. His decision to support an investigation into a soldier who killed a wounded Palestinian attacker also showed his commitment to military discipline, despite right-wing pressure.

His personal background strengthens his appeal. He is the son of Moroccan Jews, grew up on Israel’s geographic periphery, and is the father of five. Sympathy grew after his son Gal and two nephews died fighting in Gaza. He also offers hawkish security policies while accusing Netanyahu of prolonging the war and risking hostages.

A parliamentary election is a national vote for legislative seats. In Israel, voters choose party lists for the Knesset, the country’s parliament. The Knesset has 120 seats, and parties must win enough votes to enter it. The election therefore decides which political groups can shape the government.

No single party usually controls a majority. After the results, Israel’s president consults elected parties and gives one politician the task of forming a government. That politician builds a coalition whose parties together control at least 61 Knesset seats. The leader is generally the prime minister, though the largest party does not automatically win that role.

This matters in the election described because Netanyahu’s Likud and its right-wing allies are competing against an alliance led by Eisenkot. Their final seat totals, and their ability to attract partners, will determine who can govern. The supplied article does not give projected seat numbers.

Benjamin Netanyahu has been Israel’s prime minister for 19 years, according to the article. His first tenure lasted from 1996 to 1999. His second lasted from 2009 to 2021, and his third began in 2022. The three periods make him Israel’s dominant political figure in this contest.

The election is significant because Netanyahu is fighting for political survival against former army chief Gadi Eisenkot. Polls showed Netanyahu’s Likud party and right-wing allies running neck and neck with a rival alliance. The contest comes after wars in Gaza and Iran placed Netanyahu under scrutiny.

A close result could reshape Israel’s leadership and coalition politics. Eisenkot offers a different personal style and criticizes Netanyahu’s handling of Gaza, but he remains a security hawk. The election therefore is not simply a choice between war and peace. It also tests who voters trust to manage security, hostages, and Israel’s next government.

Eisenkot and Benny Gantz joined Netanyahu’s emergency war cabinet after the Hamas-led attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Their participation placed two former military chiefs inside the wartime decision-making structure. It also gave the emergency government wider political and security credibility.

They left in June 2024 because they said the government had no clear post-war strategy. Their concern was not simply about battlefield operations. They wanted a defined plan for Gaza after the fighting, including how Hamas rule would end and what political or security arrangement would follow.

The departure deepened Eisenkot’s contrast with Netanyahu. Eisenkot later accused the prime minister of prolonging the Gaza conflict and endangering Israeli hostages for political reasons. He argued that Hamas would remain in power as long as Netanyahu stayed in office. The split helped turn his wartime experience into an electoral challenge.

Eisenkot says Hamas rule in Gaza should end within 18 months. His position keeps a strong security focus, but he presents two possible routes. One is diplomatic and political. The other relies on intensified military action against Hamas’s armed structure.

The first approach is to implement US President Donald Trump’s ceasefire plan. The plan described in the article envisions Hamas gradually disarming and power being transferred. The second approach is to conduct “creative operations” designed to destroy Hamas’s military wing. Eisenkot does not present these as a softer and harder version of the same plan, but as alternative ways forward.

His proposals show both continuity and difference with Netanyahu. Eisenkot opposes Palestinian statehood and says Hamas’s military wing must be destroyed or dismantled. Yet he also accuses Netanyahu of prolonging the war and risking hostages. His central argument is that a different leader could achieve the stated security goal more effectively.

A leadership change can alter priorities, negotiations, and military decisions, but it cannot instantly remove armed groups or regional tensions. Wars continue through combatants, territory, hostages, alliances, and political objectives. Ending one government’s tenure therefore does not automatically end the conditions sustaining a conflict.

The article gives a clear example in Gaza. Eisenkot criticizes Netanyahu for prolonging the war, yet he also supports destroying or dismantling Hamas’s military wing. He rejects Palestinian statehood and promises to end Hamas rule within 18 months. His government could therefore change the method or timetable without abandoning military goals.

The article also says the election comes amid wars in Gaza and Iran, but it does not explain the Iran conflict’s causes or participants. A new leader would still face those wider security pressures. The outcome could influence ceasefire plans, hostage policy, and military operations, but ending both wars would require developments beyond one election result.

A proxy network is a set of armed or political groups that receive support from a stronger state while retaining some independent leadership. The sponsoring state may provide money, weapons, training, intelligence, or political backing. The groups then pursue local goals while often advancing the sponsor’s regional interests.

Iran has used this model across the Middle East. It supports partners such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, armed groups in Iraq and Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen. These groups can threaten rivals, influence neighboring states, and open pressure points far from Iran’s territory. Iran can gain regional reach without directly controlling every operation.

This creates strategic distance and deniability, but it also makes conflicts harder to contain. A local attack can trigger a wider confrontation involving Iran’s partners and opponents. The supplied article mentions wars in Gaza and Iran but does not explain proxy networks, so this answer adds established background beyond the article.