Israel election tests Netanyahu's grip amid security, political rifts

Israelis will head to the polls on Tuesday in an election shaped by the security failures of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack, the wars that followed and deepening disputes over military service and government accountability, with polls pointing to a close race but no clear path to a governing majority.

The vote for the 120-seat Knesset will be the first national election since the October 7 attack and the first since 1988 to take place after a parliament completed its full four-year term on schedule. While the timing marks an unusual period of political continuity for a country that held five elections between 2019 and 2022, it does not signal an end to the divisions that have repeatedly complicated government formation.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking to retain power after a period of conflict that has reshaped Israel's security environment and intensified scrutiny of his leadership. His Likud party faces a challenge from Yashar, led by former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, as well as from other opposition parties seeking to turn public dissatisfaction into a viable governing alternative.

Recent opinion polls suggest Eisenkot's party has gained ground in the contest for the largest number of seats. An average of polls published in the two weeks before October 25 put Yashar at about 22 seats and Likud at around 20, according to real-time data platform israel.com, although individual surveys have produced markedly different results, including one in which Likud held a clear lead. The outgoing governing parties collectively remain short of the 61 seats required for a parliamentary majority in most surveys.

The figures point to a central distinction in Israel's electoral politics: leading the party standings is not the same as being able to govern. The decisive question is whether Netanyahu's allies can secure a majority or whether rival parties can assemble a coalition despite differences over security policy, religious influence and relations with Arab political representatives.

October 7 failures and Iran

The October 7 attack remains central to that contest. Hamas-led militants killed more than 1,200 people in Israel and took 251 hostages, according to Israeli figures, exposing major failures in intelligence, preparedness and border security. The attack prompted a prolonged Israeli military campaign in Gaza, turning the government's handling of the crisis into a test of both its security credentials and its political accountability.

Netanyahu faces mounting pressure to accept responsibility for the security failures, with the dispute increasingly focused on whether he will agree to a state commission of inquiry with independent powers to examine the decisions of political and military leaders. Opposition parties, including Eisenkot's Yashar, have made accountability a central campaign issue, while Netanyahu has resisted calls for a state inquiry, arguing that responsibility should also be examined within the security establishment. 

The divide reflects a broader question for voters: Can the military gains achieved since October 7 outweigh the failure to prevent the attack and the government's reluctance to submit its own decisions to independent scrutiny?

Security debates in the run-up to the election extend beyond the Hamas attack to Israel's confrontation with Iran, where the gap between the government's security decisions and public expectations has been narrower. Opposition figures have largely avoided challenging the rationale for confronting Iran, instead questioning Netanyahu's strategic judgment, his handling of relations with US President Donald Trump and whether the campaign delivered lasting security gains. The dispute is therefore less about whether Iran poses a threat than whether Netanyahu's approach has effectively reduced it.

The conscription divide

Also looming over the election is the debate over mandatory military service for ultra-Orthodox Jewish men, one of Israel's longest-running and most divisive political issues that pits the principle of equal civic responsibility against the religious community's long-standing exemption for yeshiva students.

The dispute has grown more acute after years of war and repeated reserve deployments, with opposition parties accusing Netanyahu's government of shielding ultra-Orthodox men from a burden borne by other Israelis. The arrest of at least 40 ultra-Orthodox men suspected of evading conscription at Ben Gurion Airport on October 20 brought the dispute back into the headlines days before the vote.

The prime minister has been in a difficult position between competing political imperatives. His ultra-Orthodox partners, Shas and United Torah Judaism, regard protection of yeshiva students' exemption as a core condition of their support, while Netanyahu’s Likud and other right-wing politicians face growing pressure from voters who argue that the military burden must be shared more fairly. Attempts to negotiate a compromise have exposed divisions within the governing camp, as even a limited expansion of enlistment risks alienating religious allies without satisfying critics demanding broader conscription.

The issue could shape coalition negotiations in different ways. An opposition-led government would face pressure to advance broader conscription, while Netanyahu's ultra-Orthodox allies would seek guarantees protecting yeshiva students from enlistment. Whether the dispute ultimately determines the next government's composition will depend partly on the balance of seats in the Knesset and whether either camp can form a majority without compromising its position on military service.

A change of government, but how much change?

Beyond security, voters are also weighing the cost of living and Netanyahu’s legal controversies. The economic pressures facing households add another test of the government’s record, with the financial burden of military operations, rising public debt and the high cost of living remaining key concerns, while Netanyahu’s ongoing corruption trial and resistance to calls for an independent inquiry into the October 7 failures have fueled debate over his political future. These issues could reinforce demands for political change, but whether they translate into a change of government will depend on the ability of rival parties to assemble a parliamentary majority.

The fragmented electoral landscape makes the outcome difficult to translate into a government. A party must win at least 3.25% of the vote to enter the Knesset, and smaller lists hovering near that threshold could determine how many seats are available to each bloc. Arab parties, which polls suggest could collectively win a significant number of seats, may also influence the balance, although their participation in a governing coalition remains politically contentious.

Eisenkot's challenge is to turn dissatisfaction with Netanyahu into a coalition that can agree on more than replacing him. Netanyahu, meanwhile, retains the backing of a loyal electorate and established partnerships with religious and right-wing parties. Yet recent polls suggest that neither his bloc nor the main opposition bloc can secure a parliamentary majority on its own. The opposition's projected lead in seats does not necessarily translate into a viable governing coalition, as its leaders have ruled out an alliance with Arab parties whose support could prove decisive. The result could leave both camps struggling to assemble a majority, prolonging coalition negotiations and raising the prospect of renewed political deadlock.

Overall, the election comes at a time when Israel faces mounting international criticism over settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank, its military conduct in Gaza and its confrontation with Iran. Yet a change of government would be unlikely to produce a fundamental shift in Israel's approach to the Palestinians. Netanyahu and Eisenkot both reject Palestinian statehood and maintain that Israel must retain security control over the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

The clearest difference lies in the degree of flexibility: an Eisenkot-led government could curb settlement expansion, oppose unauthorized outposts and settler violence, and adopt a less confrontational approach toward Washington, while still insisting that Hamas disarm before Israeli forces withdraw from Gaza. A Netanyahu-led government, reliant on far-right partners who advocate annexation, could instead accelerate settlement construction and deepen Israeli control over occupied territory. 

The election may therefore change the political forces shaping Israeli policy more than its underlying security doctrine, with coalition partners likely to determine how far either government goes.