Netanyahu’s Political Battle

Israel’s election is not simply a contest between political parties. It is a referendum on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership after Hamas’s attack and the wars that followed in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran. It is also a choice over how Israel should balance security, accountability, democratic institutions and political stability. Netanyahu’s opponents argue that he failed to prevent the security breakdown surrounding October 7, delayed a full accounting of what went wrong and did not do enough to secure the release of the hostages. For them, the election is an opportunity to hold the prime minister politically responsible for the country’s most serious security failure. They also want a formal state commission to investigate the events leading up to and following the attack. Netanyahu rejects personal responsibility. His argument is that Israel remains surrounded by serious threats and that his experience, international contacts and record of military action make him the leader best equipped to protect the country. His campaign presents the choice as one between continuity and danger: maintain a strong, experienced government or risk weakening Israel at a time of regional conflict. The central disagreement, therefore, is not whether Israel should maintain a tough security posture. Most of the leading Jewish parties broadly agree on that point. The debate is over whether Netanyahu’s hard-line approach has strengthened Israel’s security or trapped it in prolonged conflict, rising diplomatic isolation and an uncertain political future. The election is also a struggle over the country’s democratic character. Netanyahu’s opponents accuse his government of weakening the courts and other checks on political power. They see judicial independence and institutional accountability as necessary safeguards, particularly when the prime minister himself faces questions about his conduct and leadership. Netanyahu and his allies, by contrast, present the issue as a conflict between elected representatives and unelected legal institutions. According to the latest opinion polls in Israeli media, voters may deliver a verdict without producing a clear government. The final televised polls place Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar party first, with 23 seats, narrowly ahead of Likud with 21. The anti-Netanyahu Jewish parties are projected to win 56 seats, compared with 50 for Netanyahu’s bloc, while the Arab parties are projected to hold 14 seats. A four-poll comparison by The Jerusalem Post gives the opposition or change bloc an average of about 54 seats, against 49.5 for Netanyahu’s bloc. The Arab parties average roughly 14.5 seats. These numbers underline the uncertainty. Israel’s 120-seat Knesset requires 61 seats for a governing majority, and the result could turn on whether small parties cross the 3.25 percent electoral threshold. A party’s failure to enter parliament can redistribute the balance between the blocs and change the coalition arithmetic. Most importantly, Israelis are not voting directly for prime minister. They are choosing a Knesset, after which political leaders must negotiate a coalition. Netanyahu could lose seats yet remain in office if his allies assemble a majority. His opponents could win more seats but still fail to replace him if they cannot reconcile their differences or secure support from smaller right-wing, centrist or Arab parties. The election may therefore change the political balance without immediately resolving Israel’s crisis. Its clearest result could be continued uncertainty and a renewed struggle over whether security requires Netanyahu’s leadership or accountability requires a change.