Israel’s first national vote since the October 7 attacks has put Benjamin Netanyahu’s long political career at the centre of a contest defined by security, public trust and the difficulty of building a governing coalition. Even a narrow lead for either side may not settle who becomes prime minister.

Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar party and its allies have framed the election as a verdict on the security failures surrounding the Hamas-led assault and on Netanyahu’s broader record in office. The opposition has pressed for an independent inquiry, while also arguing that Netanyahu’s judicial plans and corruption trial have sharpened concerns about democratic institutions.¹ Eisenkot’s coalition stretches from right-wing figures such as Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Lieberman to the left-leaning Yair Golan, united more by the aim of replacing Netanyahu than by a single programme.

Netanyahu, by contrast, has stressed military operations against Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran, and cast himself as the leader best placed to manage continuing regional threats. His supporters reject the view that he alone bears responsibility for October 7. “He’s not responsible for October 7,” reservist Nisim Cohen said, arguing Netanyahu should continue the wars until Israelis can “sleep peacefully.”² Another voter cited his experience in steering Israel through “difficult seasons” and his backing from the United States.²

The divisions do not map neatly onto every policy question. Eisenkot broadly shares Netanyahu’s objective of ending Hamas rule in Gaza and supports maintaining Israeli security control, though he has proposed creating conditions for Palestinian autonomy or a limited state.¹ The sharper contrast is over responsibility, political oversight and the direction of the state after the war.

Turnout has added to the sense of consequence: reports described a 15% increase compared with previous elections, with large numbers of Israelis returning from abroad to vote.³ Yet neither major bloc is projected to secure 61 seats. As one report noted, winning the most seats “would not, by itself, guarantee victory,” leaving smaller parties and coalition negotiations likely to determine whether Israel gets a new government—or another period of deadlock.⁴