A pivotal election in Israel, and Netanyahu’s next test

Israel's legislative election is a national vote for the legislature. Its result determines the balance of political power and helps decide which leader can build a government. Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the right-wing Likud party, is seeking to remain prime minister.

Netanyahu has dominated Israeli politics for roughly two decades. The election is especially important because it is the first legislative vote since the 7 October attacks in 2023 and comes after three years of war. A victory would signal continued support from his voters during that conflict.

A defeat would end Netanyahu's current political dominance and could bring a government led by his opponents. The article identifies former military chief Gadi Eisenkot as a leading rival. Although Eisenkot shares some hard-line positions with Netanyahu, his central campaign message is that voters should choose someone other than Netanyahu.

The article estimates that roughly seven million eligible Israeli voters will go to polling stations. They are voting in Israel's first legislative election since the 7 October attacks in 2023. The figure gives the election a broad national reach, rather than making it a contest decided by a small political group.

These voters will choose among parties competing for legislative seats. The resulting balance will affect which political bloc can try to form a government. Netanyahu's right-wing Likud party is seeking another victory, while rivals are campaigning against his leadership.

The turnout figure also highlights the scale of the public judgment facing Netanyahu. His supporters are being asked to endorse him after three years of war, while opponents argue that his approach offers what Gadi Eisenkot called “an eternal war.” The final result could therefore shape both domestic leadership and Israel's external relationships.

The election is the first legislative vote held since the 7 October attacks in 2023. The article places it after three years of war, making the conflict the central backdrop to the campaign. Voters are judging the government while Israel remains engaged in a major security crisis.

Netanyahu's incumbency is tied to that wartime record. Another victory would show strong confidence from constituents despite the attacks and continuing conflict. His leading rival, former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, argues that Netanyahu is offering “an eternal war.” Eisenkot's two sons were killed in combat, giving his criticism a deeply personal context.

The war also shapes the campaign's policy boundaries. Netanyahu and Eisenkot both reject a two-state solution and support a hard-line approach toward Iran. The main contrast presented in the article is therefore leadership and direction, not a complete reversal of security policy.

Netanyahu's main political rivals are led by Gadi Eisenkot, a former military chief and leader of the Yashar party. Eisenkot's two sons were killed in combat. He is presenting himself as an alternative to Netanyahu, saying the prime minister's approach would mean “an eternal war.”

The differences are not absolute. Eisenkot and Netanyahu both reject a two-state solution and favour a hard-line approach with Iran. Eisenkot's campaign therefore rests less on a wholesale change in security policy than on changing the person and government responsible for national decisions.

The opposition's central argument is captured in its simple premise: Eisenkot is not Netanyahu. If voters accept that message, the result could produce a new administration even though some major positions remain similar. The election thus offers a choice between continuity under Netanyahu and leadership change under his opponents.

If Netanyahu loses, the most immediate domestic change could be a government led by the opposition. Yossi Mekelberg of Chatham House said such a government could bring meaningful change. The most important example is a state commission into the 7 October attacks, which the current government has rejected or resisted.

The proposed commission would examine what happened before and during the attacks. Mekelberg said growing government opposition to the idea increases public suspicion that officials have something to hide. That claim explains why accountability has become a major dividing line in the election, alongside the war and security policy.

A change of government would not necessarily end every existing policy. Netanyahu and Eisenkot share positions on a two-state solution and Iran. But a new administration could change the investigation process, relations with institutions, and the political response to the attacks. The election will show whether voters prioritise continuity or accountability.

The election could change how the European Union engages with Israel, although the article does not predict a specific outcome. The EU-Israel Association Agreement remains in force. It created a free trade area for industrial goods, agricultural trade preferences, and a framework for political, economic, and cultural cooperation.

The key mechanism is political engagement around that agreement. Amnesty International says the EU and its member states must prevent trade and investment that assist Israel's unlawful occupation of Palestinian territories, citing a July 2024 International Court of Justice advisory opinion. The EU executive has also tried, unsuccessfully, to ban trade with illegal Israeli settlements.

A new Israeli administration could offer Brussels “some hope” of finding common ground, according to one EU insider. But major disputes would remain. Relations between EU foreign-policy chief Kaja Kallas and Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar are already fractious, so the election may bring opportunity without guaranteeing agreement.

Israel's parliamentary system uses proportional representation. Voters support party lists, and legislative seats are allocated broadly according to each party's share of the vote, subject to the electoral threshold. This allows several parties to enter parliament instead of producing a simple winner-takes-all result.

The key mechanism is coalition-building. A party may win the largest share but still lack enough seats to govern alone. Its leader must negotiate with other parties, combine their seats, and agree on a governing programme. The alliance that can command a parliamentary majority receives the practical chance to form a government.

The source article focuses on Netanyahu and Gadi Eisenkot but does not explain Israel's electoral rules. In practice, the result could therefore produce continuity or leadership change depending on post-election alliances, not just which party finishes first. Coalition partners can also shape policy and determine whether a proposed investigation or other measures advance.