Israeli voters are set to go to the polls this Tuesday in an election that has drawn considerable attention amid ongoing conflict and heightened security concerns. The race centers on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his closest challenger, Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the Yashar party and former chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces. While both candidates share many security priorities, the election presents notable differences in their approaches to key issues such as violence in the West Bank, relations with the United States, and policy toward Gaza.
On the West Bank, the two candidates agree on the necessity of confronting Palestinian terrorism, which Israeli security officials say involves over a thousand attempted attacks annually. However, Netanyahu has overseen a significant intensification of military occupation in Palestinian areas like Jenin, Tulkarem, and Nur al-Shams, while Eisenkot has indicated a willingness to reduce the Israeli military presence in these regions more promptly. Both have stopped short of proposing diplomatic solutions concerning borders or sovereignty, although Eisenkot leans toward mitigating major sources of violence.
A prominent point of contention between them concerns Jewish extremist violence against Palestinians. Eisenkot accuses Netanyahu of enabling this issue by backing ministers who have taken a permissive stance toward such extremists. Specifically, Netanyahu’s national security minister, Ben Gvir, has instructed police to adopt a restrained approach to arresting violent settlers, and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich has facilitated the expansion of unauthorized Jewish settlements. Eisenkot has vowed to curb these developments and block further settlement growth, suggesting a tougher line on extremist activities that have strained Israel’s international relations.
Both candidates regard Iran’s nuclear and missile programs as existential threats to Israel and are prepared to take military action if Tehran crosses critical thresholds. However, their strategies diverge with regard to diplomacy. Netanyahu has expressed a readiness to act unilaterally and confront the United States if he views an Iran nuclear deal as unfavorable. In contrast, Eisenkot favors working more closely with U.S. allies, advocating a united diplomatic front to enhance any agreement with Iran.
Regarding Gaza, neither Netanyahu nor Eisenkot supports the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state. Eisenkot is more open to engaging with alternative governance structures to Hamas, viewing the Palestinian Authority as a comparatively better option despite reservations. He also signals a willingness to uphold and potentially extend concessions agreed upon during last year’s cease-fire mediated by the Trump administration, including partial rebuilding in Gaza and scaled-down Israeli military withdrawals. Netanyahu, by contrast, has largely delayed these initiatives.
The state of U.S.-Israel relations looms large in the election discourse, complicated further by recent shifts in American public opinion. With support for the Israeli government among Americans reported at historic lows, partly due to perceptions of ongoing conflict and challenges in dialogue, the election's outcome could influence bilateral ties. Netanyahu’s continued leadership, alongside his right-wing coalition, is seen by some as likely to perpetuate existing tensions. Eisenkot’s potential ascendancy may open pathways toward rapprochement by signaling greater flexibility on security and political issues.
The Oct. 7 attacks and the resulting war in Gaza have reshaped Israel’s security environment and will likely play a decisive role in voters’ decisions as the country seeks leadership to navigate this volatile period.