'Lesser of 2 evils': Israel's election leaves Gaza future in limbo

Israel’s election could change Gaza’s leadership in Israel and possibly affect military policy, aid, withdrawals, and negotiations. Many residents wanted Benjamin Netanyahu defeated because they feared his victory would bring more war and suffering. Yet they did not expect an election alone to repair Gaza’s devastation or end the violence.

Ayman Ahmed supported Gadi Eisenkot as the lesser of two evils. Mohammed Abed said Eisenkot’s policies were almost similar to Netanyahu’s, since Eisenkot favors tough responses to Israel’s enemies. Two strikes near Nasser Hospital killed one man and wounded at least six during the election period.

The immediate outlook therefore remained bleak. More than 1,550 Palestinians had been killed since the October 2025 cease-fire, and most of Gaza’s 2 million people remained displaced. Residents hoped for change, but their urgent concerns were food, safety, homes, and whether the stalled roadmap would move forward.

Benjamin Netanyahu was Israel’s prime minister during the events described. His government agreed to Donald Trump’s roadmap for Gaza but did not carry it beyond its initial stage. Residents associated Netanyahu with continued war, airstrikes, and policies they considered especially hard on Gaza.

Gadi Eisenkot was Netanyahu’s main challenger and a former military chief. He favored tough responses to “Israel’s enemies,” so residents did not expect him to transform Gaza’s situation. Ayman Ahmed still supported Eisenkot because he wanted anyone but Netanyahu to lead the next government. Mohammed Abed said their policies were almost similar.

The election could therefore change Israel’s leadership without guaranteeing a major policy shift. Netanyahu’s return could signal continuity and more suffering to residents. An Eisenkot victory might create political change, but the article reports that Gaza residents expected the military and humanitarian reality to remain largely the same.

“The lesser of two evils” describes a choice between two disliked or harmful options, where one seems less damaging. In this election, Ahmed did not portray either major candidate as fully acceptable to Gaza residents. He said all Israeli policies toward Gaza were tough, but he still preferred Netanyahu’s main challenger.

Ahmed hoped Gadi Eisenkot would defeat Netanyahu and supported efforts to remove Netanyahu from power. Yet Eisenkot was a former military chief who favored tough responses to Israel’s enemies. Mohammed Abed therefore said an Eisenkot victory would not dramatically change the situation because the candidates’ policies were almost similar.

The phrase shows the narrow choice residents believed they faced. They wanted a change in leadership, mainly to avoid more war and suffering under Netanyahu. But they did not expect Eisenkot to quickly end airstrikes, reverse destruction, or solve Gaza’s basic needs, including finding enough food.

The article portrays Gaza’s humanitarian crisis as both enormous and continuing. Gaza has about 2 million people, and most remain displaced from their homes. Many live in bombed-out ruins or squalid tent camps. Their immediate needs include food, safety, shelter, and a chance to rebuild.

The death toll also remains severe. Gaza’s Health Ministry reported that more than 1,550 Palestinians had been killed by Israel’s military since the October 2025 cease-fire began. Women and children made up roughly half of those killed. Two strikes in Khan Younis killed one man and wounded at least six more during the election period.

The destruction reaches across the territory. Israel’s retaliatory offensive killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and destroyed much of Gaza. Hasan al-Masri said his home in Beit Hanoun was gone, along with his children, property, and everything he had. The crisis therefore remained both humanitarian and physical.

Donald Trump’s roadmap proposed a political and security framework for Gaza. It called for Hamas to disarm and for a new U.S.-backed government to be installed. It also required Israel to withdraw its forces from the territory and allow reconstruction to begin. These steps were intended to address control, security, military presence, and Gaza’s physical recovery.

Netanyahu agreed to the plan but did not implement it beyond the initial stage. That stage involved a partial Israeli withdrawal and increased aid in exchange for the return of Hamas-held hostages, including those living and dead. The article presents this as a limited beginning rather than full implementation.

The plan then stalled. It had been largely frozen for nearly a year while airstrikes continued despite the cease-fire. Gaza remained heavily damaged, most people stayed displaced, and residents saw little immediate improvement. Moving forward would require the uncompleted political, military, aid, and reconstruction measures to resume.

The article links Gaza’s current conditions to Hamas’s incursion into southern Israel on October 7, 2023. About 1,200 people were killed, and 251 hostages were taken. That attack began the wider conflict described in the article and set the context for the military and humanitarian disaster that followed.

Israel responded with a retaliatory offensive. The offensive killed tens of thousands of Palestinians and destroyed much of Gaza. Homes, hospitals’ surrounding areas, streets, and civilian infrastructure became part of a landscape of rubble. Residents were driven from their homes and many ended up in tent camps or damaged ruins.

The consequences continued even after a cease-fire began in October 2025. More than 1,550 Palestinians were killed afterward, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry, and strikes still occurred in Khan Younis. Most of Gaza’s 2 million people remained displaced, while reconstruction had not meaningfully begun.

A cease-fire is an agreed pause or stopping of fighting between opposing sides. It can reduce violence without creating a permanent peace settlement. The source does not provide a formal definition, but it describes a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas that began in October 2025 and did not end Gaza’s wider insecurity.

The article reports that Israeli airstrikes remained regular despite the cease-fire. Two strikes in Khan Younis killed one man and wounded at least six others. Israel’s military did not immediately respond to a request for comment. These incidents show how a cease-fire can exist while violations, disputed terms, or limited enforcement allow violence to continue.

The humanitarian crisis also outlasted the declaration. More than 1,550 Palestinians were killed after the cease-fire began, and most of Gaza’s 2 million people remained displaced. The roadmap was largely frozen, reconstruction had not begun, and residents still feared more war. A cease-fire therefore brought no guaranteed safety or recovery.