Gadi Eisenkot, the retired Israel Defense Forces chief of staff, is leading opinion polls ahead of Israel’s national elections scheduled for Tuesday, positioning himself as a principal challenger to the incumbent Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. While Eisenkot is not the first military figure to seek Israel’s top political post, his background and approach distinguish him from previous army leaders turned politicians.
Eisenkot, known for his stern and reserved demeanor, contrasts sharply with the typically more outgoing Israeli political class. He is physically imposing, with a rugged appearance that reflects his military career. Unlike Netanyahu, who was raised and educated in the United States and is fluent in English, Eisenkot speaks English less fluently, emphasizing his image as a straightforward, no-nonsense figure.
Among Eisenkot’s most notable military legacies is the development of the “Dahiyeh Doctrine,” a strategy centered on large-scale destruction of civilian infrastructure to deter hostile forces, originally implemented in Lebanon’s Dahiyeh suburb, a Hezbollah stronghold. This hardline tactic has also informed Israeli military actions in Gaza. Additionally, Eisenkot supports Israel’s proactive “wars between the wars” approach, which involves covert operations targeting adversaries such as Iranian nuclear sites outside declared conflicts.
Eisenkot leads the newly established Yashar (Straight and Party), a political formation currently polling slightly ahead of Netanyahu’s Likud party. His candidacy resonates with a significant portion of the Israeli electorate identified as “anyone-but-Bibi,” reflecting widespread dissatisfaction with Netanyahu amid his ongoing corruption trials and criticism over his handling of Israel’s security since the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks. Netanyahu has faced scrutiny for perceived attempts to undermine judicial independence and for the security lapses that enabled the Hamas assault.
Unlike Netanyahu’s polished and politically savvy image, Eisenkot presents a more grounded, military-focused alternative, appealing to voters who seek a continuation of the robust security measures adopted after the Hamas attack but desire a break from Netanyahu’s leadership style and controversies. Eisenkot’s party name underscores this anti-Netanyahu sentiment.
Eisenkot’s background also marks a departure from Israel’s political elite. He is Mizrahi, the son of Moroccan Jewish immigrants, and would become Israel’s first prime minister of Middle Eastern Jewish descent if elected. His personal losses in the Gaza war—his youngest son and two nephews were killed while serving in the Israel Defense Forces—add a deeply personal dimension to his political profile. In contrast, Netanyahu’s family background is Ashkenazi, and his son Yair is known for his high-profile, often controversial media presence.
Despite his popularity, Eisenkot faces challenges forming a coalition government. His potential base would span leftists, centrists, and right-wing secular parties, and he might even require the support of Arab parties willing to back his policies without joining the administration. To date, Eisenkot has provided few specifics on a political platform, but he has emphasized the need for a diplomatic approach alongside military efforts against Hamas and addressing the future of the West Bank.
Netanyahu remains a formidable political operator, with decades of experience in coalition-building, a skill Eisenkot lacks in his nascent political career. Previous security-focused challengers like former army chief Benny Gantz, who led the Blue and White party in 2019, initially gained traction but ultimately failed to dislodge Netanyahu. Gantz recently withdrew from the race amid plummeting poll numbers.
Eisenkot’s candidacy therefore represents a familiar dynamic in Israeli politics—a military leader positioning himself as a hardline, security-focused alternative to Netanyahu, backed by public desire for change but facing the complex task of uniting a fragmented parliament and navigating the country’s fraught political landscape. Whether Eisenkot’s toughness on the battlefield translates into political resilience remains to be seen.