Gadi Eisenkot, former chief of Israel’s military staff, has entered the political arena with a platform marked by ambiguity on some of the country’s most contentious issues. As Israel prepares for upcoming elections, Eisenkot’s positions reflect both continuity and cautious divergence from the current government led by Benjamin Netanyahu.
On domestic matters, Eisenkot advocates for a comprehensive inquiry into the intelligence lapses that preceded the deadly Hamas attack on October 7, 2023. He has also stirred debate by supporting the end of the long-standing military draft exemption for the ultra-Orthodox community, a policy that has historically generated social and political tension in Israel.
Eisenkot’s stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains notably noncommittal. He declined to endorse a two-state solution, stating during his campaign, “I’ve never said that the solution is two states for two peoples,” and warning against expectations for a current agreement, citing the entrenched religious-national conflict. His position on West Bank settlements is similarly nuanced. While opposing the controversial E1 settlement plan—considered by many an impediment to Palestinian statehood—he nonetheless supports settlement activity in general.
Where Eisenkot distinguishes himself is in his criticism of Netanyahu’s appointment of far-right, pro-settler minister Bezalel Smotrich to oversee the West Bank. The region has seen a sharp rise in settler violence, drawing international condemnation and sanctions. Eisenkot has pledged to reverse this policy, proposing a reassertion of military control over the area.
Experts remain skeptical of Eisenkot’s approach, suggesting it signals a preference for managing rather than resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yossi Mekelberg, a scholar at Chatham House, described Eisenkot’s campaign as an attempt to present a more competent leadership style without pursuing a fundamentally different direction on the core conflict. “They are not really talking about the Palestinian issue,” Mekelberg said.
Eisenkot’s record as a military leader offers additional context. As northern front commander during the 2006 Lebanon war, he implemented the Dahiya doctrine, endorsing the use of disproportionate force—a strategy evident in current operations in Gaza. However, he has also been characterized as a pragmatic strategist on Gaza, previously acknowledging the improbability of a total victory over Hamas and emphasizing the importance of safeguarding hostages held by the militant group. Eisenkot suffered a personal loss in the conflict when his son, Gal Meir Eisenkot, died during a 2023 Gaza operation aimed at recovering hostage bodies.
Unlike Netanyahu, Eisenkot does not espouse militarization as an overarching national goal. He criticized Netanyahu’s vision of Israel as a “super-Sparta” state, favoring a more measured approach to state violence. Observers predict that while an Eisenkot-led government might clamp down on settler violence, it may stop short of pursuing deeper policy changes.
Political analysts also question the potential longevity and impact of an Eisenkot government, noting the challenges of coalition-building in Israel’s fractious political landscape. Mekelberg suggested such a government could focus on restoring Israel’s international relationships and reducing tensions but cautioned that it would likely be a “government of containment” rather than transformation.
Former diplomat Shai Bazak framed Eisenkot’s appeal in the post-Netanyahu era as a desire among voters for stability over spectacle. Bazak remarked that after years of dominant, charismatic leadership, there is an appetite for “peace and quiet” without the accompanying drama.
As Israel approaches a pivotal electoral moment, Eisenkot’s platform embodies a cautious approach, blending military pragmatism with political ambiguity amid ongoing national challenges.