In the lead-up to Israel’s upcoming election, opposition leaders Naftali Bennett, Gadi Eisenkot, and Avigdor Liberman are engaged in a strategic contest to solidify their party lists and clarify leadership roles, raising questions about the opposition’s ability to present a united front against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

This week, Bennett and Eisenkot focused on finalizing their candidate rosters. Bennett has recently added a number of relatively unknown candidates, including women, in an apparent effort to broaden his party’s appeal, subsequently incorporating men who also lack extensive political experience. In contrast, Eisenkot has prioritized bringing former Knesset members into his ranks after initially recruiting newcomers. Both leaders emphasize loyalty among their candidates, a lesson Bennett learned in 2021 when defections within his Yamina party contributed to the collapse of his government.

However, a larger challenge looms over the opposition bloc beyond candidate selection: uncertainty regarding who will lead the alliance if it manages to unseat Netanyahu. Eisenkot has consistently stated that the head of the opposition party winning the most seats—be it his Yashar party, Bennett’s faction, Liberman’s Yisrael Beytenu, or Yair Golan’s Democrats—should receive the mandate to form the government. Despite this clarity, Bennett and Liberman have not committed to endorsing Eisenkot’s leadership, even as his party enjoys favorable polling, currently around 24 seats, compared to their own positions.

Both Bennett and Liberman appear reluctant to acknowledge Eisenkot's lead prematurely, aiming to maintain their standing among right-wing voters. Bennett has witnessed a transfer of support toward Eisenkot in recent months, and publicly conceding Eisenkot’s leadership could risk alienating his base. Liberman, similarly, has resisted endorsing any single candidate, seeking to safeguard his party’s influence as campaigns and public opinion remain fluid with two months to go before the vote.

This impasse, while politically understandable, risks limiting the opposition’s ability to expand its support beyond existing constituencies, potentially allowing Netanyahu to consolidate undecided voters, many of whom hail from the right-wing segment. Netanyahu’s campaign can focus on reclaiming these voters while his challengers compete internally over leadership.

A further complication arises from historical precedent. Bennett, despite his party’s smaller size in 2021, became prime minister over Yair Lapid, whose party won significantly more seats, because coalition dynamics necessitated it. Liberman could invoke a similar rationale, arguing that his right-wing credentials justify a leadership claim if the opposition requires Arab party support to reach a governing majority. Alternatively, Bennett and Liberman might form a technical alliance to challenge Eisenkot's claim, potentially leading to a deadlock that would enable Netanyahu to retain the first opportunity to form a government even if opposition parties collectively hold a majority.

This scenario, while extraordinary, highlights the fragility of the opposition coalition. Bennett’s polling numbers may also be misleading; following a post-election split from Yesh Atid, his faction could shrink significantly, diminishing his leverage relative to Eisenkot and Liberman. Liberman, a veteran politician with extensive ministerial experience, is positioning himself as a credible alternative, emphasizing his record over party size.

Nevertheless, Israeli prime ministerial success historically requires both bloc cohesion and clear leadership. Netanyahu’s camp, despite internal rivalries, presents a unified candidate for prime minister, a standard the opposition has yet to meet.

With time remaining before the election, all three opposition leaders continue to campaign assertively. Yet, absent an agreement on who would lead a potential new government, the opposition risks delivering a paradoxical outcome: winning the legislative majority to replace Netanyahu but failing to agree on a successor, thereby jeopardizing their stated objective.