Israel Faces a Pivotal Election Shaped by Security and Democracy

Preface

Israelis are voting in an election widely regarded as one of the most consequential in the country's history. Security, democratic institutions, military conscription, and the future of the Palestinian territories have all shaped the campaign. An unprecedented 70,000 people have reportedly returned from abroad to vote, while half-a-million citizens are casting ballots for the first time. Yet the outcome may not be decided simply by which leader receives the most support: Israel's proportional representation system requires parties to assemble a parliamentary majority through coalition-building. Polling published on Friday placed incumbent Benjamin Netanyahu in a close contest with former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, but neither political bloc was projected to win the 61 seats needed to govern. The central question is therefore not only who leads the vote, but which alliances—and compromises—can produce a government.

Lazy bag

This election combines a close leadership contest with a complicated parliamentary arithmetic. Netanyahu is seeking another term through an alliance with far-right and ultra-Orthodox parties, while Eisenkot leads a diverse opposition bloc united by the goal of replacing him. Security failures, democratic concerns, conscription, and policy toward Gaza and the West Bank have dominated debate. Arab parties could potentially influence coalition formation, although most leading Jewish parties have rejected working with them. With neither main bloc projected to secure the 61 seats required for a majority, negotiations, unexpected partnerships, or even another election remain possible.

Main Body

Israel's election is taking place amid intense public interest and unusually high political stakes. Reports say an unprecedented 70,000 people have flown home from abroad to vote, and half-a-million people will participate in an election for the first time. Polling published on Friday indicated a near neck-and-neck contest between incumbent Benjamin Netanyahu and Gadi Eisenkot, a former military chief seeking to become prime minister. However, the projected results suggest that neither candidate's political bloc will win the 61 seats required to form a majority government. The vote may therefore begin a lengthy period of bargaining rather than provide an immediate answer about who will govern.

The structure of Israel's political system helps explain why the election is difficult to predict. Proportional representation has meant that Israeli governments have always been coalitions. Parties must negotiate with one another to assemble a governing majority, and those negotiations can create alliances that appear unexpected during a campaign. In this contest, the arithmetic is particularly tight, while political leaders have already identified boundaries they are reluctant to cross. Even a strong showing by one party or bloc may not be enough to determine the next government on its own.

Eisenkot leads the newly formed Yashar Party and is the most prominent figure in the so-called “change bloc.” The parties in this group have different ideological positions, but share the aim of removing Netanyahu from power. Its other leaders include former prime minister Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Lieberman, both right-wing politicians known for hardline security positions, as well as Yair Golan, a former general with left-leaning views. The bloc's diversity gives it a broad potential base, but it also makes agreement on policy and coalition terms a central challenge.

Netanyahu, a major figure in Israeli politics who first served as prime minister in 1996, is relying on a different potential coalition. Returning to office would depend on rebuilding an alliance with far-right and ultra-Orthodox parties that form part of his current government. That coalition is described as the most right-wing in Israel's history. Its partners could provide the support needed to govern, but coalition negotiations would also involve balancing the priorities of parties with distinct constituencies and policy demands.

Arab political parties are also contesting the election. About one-fifth of Israel's population is Arab, and many Arab citizens describe themselves as Palestinian citizens of Israel. In theory, Arab parties could become kingmakers if neither main bloc can secure enough support independently. In practice, their possible role is restricted: all but one of the leading Jewish parties have ruled out working with them. Some observers have speculated that Arab parties could informally support a minority government led by Eisenkot, but Lieberman, a potential partner in the opposition bloc, has ruled out participating in such an arrangement.

At 22:00 (20:00 GMT) on Tuesday, Israeli broadcasters are expected to release exit polls. The polls may indicate the direction of the result, but they can vary significantly from the final count. Across the country, voters and political supporters will gather to follow the returns. Netanyahu's Likud party is meeting in Jerusalem, while Eisenkot's Yashar Party—formed only last year—is assembling in Tel Aviv. The atmosphere at these events will reflect the uncertainty of a contest in which even early projections may not settle the question of coalition formation.

Security has been a defining campaign issue. Opposition parties have criticized Netanyahu over the unprecedented security failure that preceded the Hamas-led attacks on Israel on 7 October. Nearly 1,200 people were killed in the attacks, and 251 were taken back to Gaza as hostages. Opposition leaders have called for an independent commission of inquiry. Netanyahu has long resisted that proposal, arguing that such an inquiry would be biased against him. The dispute concerns both responsibility for the failures and the broader question of how the country should scrutinize decisions made by its leaders.

Criticism of Netanyahu has also focused on democratic institutions. He faces an ongoing trial on corruption charges, which he denies, and continues to pursue contentious plans for judicial-system reforms. Those plans prompted mass protests before the 7 October attacks. Opponents argue that the reforms pose risks to democracy, while the issue has become part of a wider debate about accountability and the balance of power within the state. Together, the security failure, the proposed inquiry, the trial, and the judicial plans have made the election a contest over more than leadership alone.

Netanyahu has countered these criticisms by presenting himself as “Mr Security.” He points to strategic victories in Israel's wars across the Middle East and to his close relationship with US President Donald Trump. In the final days of the campaign, reports about possible military action against Iran brought additional attention to his security message. On Sunday, Israel's Channel 12 reported that Netanyahu had pushed for last-minute military action that could trigger a confrontation with Iran before the election, but that his military chief Eyal Zamir opposed it. The following day, CNN reported that Netanyahu had also tried to persuade Trump to carry out new strikes on Iran, but Trump refused to give the green light. Netanyahu denied both reports.

Netanyahu also drew attention for posting an AI-generated image of a nuclear bomb hitting Tel Aviv. He warned that he was the only leader who could protect Israel “if the Iranians acquire nuclear weapons.” Eisenkot described him as “hysterical.” The episode underscored how Iran and national security have featured in campaign messaging, while also illustrating the sharp personal and political rhetoric between the leading contenders.

Another major issue is conscription. Netanyahu's government has failed to enforce a Supreme Court ruling requiring ultra-Orthodox Jewish men engaged in full-time religious study to be conscripted into the military. The question is highly divisive, particularly because thousands of other people have been conscripted to fight in recent wars. The debate raises questions about equal obligations, religious study, and the distribution of military service, while also affecting the prospects for cooperation between parties on which a coalition might depend.

On Gaza, Eisenkot's position is broadly similar to Netanyahu's. He has pledged to end Hamas rule in the territory within 18 months, either through a US-led peace plan or, if necessary, military means. Israel has continued to strike Gaza almost every day since a ceasefire was agreed last year, saying it is targeting Hamas operatives. The campaign debate therefore reflects both the continued importance of military objectives and the difficulty of reaching a lasting political arrangement for the territory.

Eisenkot also largely supports Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, which are illegal under international law. At the same time, he has called for action against extremist Jewish settlers whose attacks are at an all-time high, according to UN figures. He has spoken of creating conditions for “autonomy or a state-minus” for Palestinians, while maintaining ultimate Israeli security control. These positions illustrate the limits and divisions in the current political discussion about Palestinian governance and the territory's future.

The two-state solution—the creation of an independent Palestinian state living peacefully alongside Israel—has almost disappeared from mainstream Israeli politics. Although Arab parties may affect coalition arithmetic, their influence is uncertain because leading Jewish parties have largely ruled out cooperation and Lieberman has rejected informal support for a minority government. These boundaries make the electoral calculations complicated. Once results are known, parties may still need to decide whether to make concessions, negotiate deals, or reverse positions they took during the campaign.

The timing of the count could also matter. Hundreds of thousands of Israeli soldiers and reservists will vote, but many of their ballots will not begin to be counted until Wednesday. That delay could produce a late boost for right-wing parties, which are thought to have strong support among this group. As a result, early exit polls or partial results may not reveal the final balance, and coalition discussions could continue while the count changes.

Although the contest is often presented as a direct choice between Eisenkot and Netanyahu, another leader could ultimately take power. A party leader might withhold support for a coalition unless offered the top job, changing the negotiations and the identity of the eventual prime minister. The outcome most feared by many is political deadlock: no bloc reaches a majority, and no minority government can be formed. In that case, new elections would be called and Netanyahu would remain interim prime minister. Israel has already experienced five separate elections between 2019 and 2022 as parties repeatedly failed to cooperate. The current vote may therefore determine not only the next government, but whether the political system can produce a stable governing arrangement.

Key Insights Table