JERUSALEM, Oct 27 – Israelis headed to the polls Tuesday in a closely watched national election that could determine whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu remains in power after years of conflict, political division and mounting international criticism. The vote comes as the country continues to grapple with the consequences of Hamas’ October 7, 2023, attack, unresolved security threats and disagreements over the future direction of the Israeli state.
Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving prime minister, is facing a challenge from a collection of political parties seeking to end his tenure. Former military chief Gadi Eisenkot has emerged as his principal rival, with opinion polls indicating a competitive contest that could leave the country facing difficult coalition negotiations.
More than 7 million Israelis are eligible to vote, including approximately 330,000 young people participating in a national election for the first time. Tens of thousands of Israelis have also reportedly traveled from abroad to take part in the vote.
Netanyahu cast his ballot shortly after midday and described the election as a decisive moment for the country. Speaking to journalists afterward, he raised concerns about strong turnout among Arab voters, arguing that their participation could influence the final outcome. He urged his supporters to prioritize voting rather than spend the day at the beach or attending barbecues.
The early figures suggested an unusually strong response from voters. More than 31% of eligible Israelis had cast their ballots by noon, according to the Central Elections Committee. That represented the highest midday turnout recorded since 1977, underscoring the importance many Israelis attached to the election.
The outcome could shape not only the country’s leadership but also its approach to military security, relations with Palestinians, compulsory military service and the role of religious and nationalist movements in government.
Security, Gaza War and Political Divisions Shape the Campaign
For many Israeli voters, the election is fundamentally about national security and the ability of political leaders to protect the country. The October 7, 2023, Hamas attack remains a defining event in the national debate, having triggered the war in Gaza and contributed to wider regional confrontations.
Families affected by the attack gathered in Tel Aviv to observe a moment of silence for those who were killed or taken hostage. Yona Adam, whose daughter Mapal Adam died in the attack, called on people to remember those who had lost their lives.
Eisenkot began election day by visiting communities near Gaza that were attacked on October 7. He questioned the government’s sense of responsibility, saying officials should have started the day in the affected communities.
After voting, Eisenkot addressed supporters who had gathered around him, urging Israelis to turn out and remove what he described as the worst government the country had experienced. He acknowledged that victory was not guaranteed but characterized the election as one of the most consequential days since Israel’s founding.
His campaign also raised concerns about the voting process. Eisenkot’s Yashar party filed an urgent complaint alleging nine incidents in which its ballot slips were missing, damaged or turned over inside voting booths. The party suggested that the incidents could represent a deliberate attempt to interfere with its electoral performance.
Dean Livne, acting director-general of the Central Elections Committee, offered a more reassuring assessment of the broader situation, saying reports of irregularities and other problems at polling stations were considerably fewer than during previous elections.
The campaign has also highlighted the growing divide over Israel’s international standing. The country’s military operations in Gaza and violence by Jewish settlers in the occupied West Bank have attracted increasing criticism abroad. Public support for Israel among Americans has declined, while some European and other international partners have imposed sanctions.
These developments have raised questions about how Israel can maintain its security while managing its diplomatic relationships and international reputation. The issue is particularly significant for voters who believe the country’s current policies are increasing its isolation.
Relations with Iran remain another major concern. Netanyahu issued renewed warnings to Tehran before the election, threatening a devastating response if Iran attacked Israel. His statements reflected the continuing regional tensions confronting whichever government emerges from the vote.
Within Israel, however, voters remain divided over the prime minister’s record. Supporters regard Netanyahu as an experienced statesman who has guided the country through multiple wars and defended its national interests. They also support his emphasis on preserving Israel’s Jewish identity and limiting what they consider excessive intervention by the judiciary.
His opponents argue that his leadership has deepened divisions, weakened democratic institutions and prolonged the conflict in Gaza. Netanyahu is also facing an ongoing corruption trial, which has contributed to criticism of his leadership. His detractors have questioned whether political considerations have influenced decisions surrounding the war and efforts to secure the release of hostages.
Angela Bengur, a voter in Jerusalem, expressed frustration with the current administration, saying she believed the government was driving the country toward decline.
The dispute over military conscription has become another central issue. Critics accuse Netanyahu’s coalition of allowing ultra-Orthodox Jewish men to avoid the compulsory military service required of much of the population. For opponents, the issue represents a broader question of fairness and shared responsibility at a time when the country continues to face security threats.
Parties aligned with Eisenkot have pledged to pursue changes to military service requirements, strengthen judicial independence and improve Israel’s international relationships. Eisenkot’s personal experience of the conflict has also shaped his political appeal. His son and two nephews were killed in Gaza, a loss that supporters say gives him a direct understanding of the war’s human consequences.
Security, Military Conscription and Integrity Are Top Issues
Israel’s parliamentary system makes the election more complicated than a straightforward contest between two political leaders. No single party has ever secured an outright majority in the Knesset, meaning the formation of a government depends on negotiations among parties willing to work together.
As a result, even a strong performance by Netanyahu or Eisenkot may not be enough to guarantee power. Netanyahu’s religious and ultranationalist allies must secure sufficient parliamentary support, while the parties seeking to replace him face the challenge of assembling a viable alternative coalition.
The Arab-led parties could prove decisive if neither major political grouping wins enough seats to govern independently. Their participation in coalition negotiations could influence which leader ultimately receives the opportunity to form a government.
Mansour Abbas, leader of the Ra’am party, said while voting that he expected the election to bring a change in government. He also expressed hope that turnout in Arab communities would exceed 70%.
Arab citizens account for approximately 20% of Israel’s population, making their participation potentially significant in a close election. However, whether their parties can exercise decisive influence will depend on the parliamentary arithmetic and the willingness of other political groups to cooperate with them.
The prospect of Arab parties helping determine the next government has already become a point of contention among Netanyahu’s allies. Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s far-right national security minister, warned that Mansour Abbas would effectively determine the composition of the government if Netanyahu’s coalition failed to win. Ben-Gvir has faced criticism for his hard-line positions toward Palestinians, including remarks suggesting that some Palestinians in Gaza were not even people.
The tensions have also been visible among voters. In Kiryat Shmona, a town near the Lebanese border that has traditionally supported Netanyahu, one man kicked and tore down a campaign poster featuring Eisenkot. The incident illustrated the intensity of political loyalties in communities that have experienced the consequences of regional conflict.
The election also reflects a broader debate about the character of Israeli society. Voters are choosing between competing visions of a country shaped more strongly by religious and nationalist forces and one that places greater emphasis on liberal, secular values and independent democratic institutions.
For Eisenkot’s supporters, a change in government could provide an opportunity to rebuild international relationships and reconsider domestic policies. For Netanyahu’s backers, removing him could jeopardize the security approach they believe has protected Israel during a period of sustained conflict.
In Jaffa, voter Nisso Shitrit emphasized the question of military service, arguing that the election was about who contributes to building the country and who avoids that responsibility.
As voting continues, the result is expected to have consequences extending well beyond the immediate contest for the premiership. The next government will face pressure to address national security, the unresolved consequences of the October 7 attack, the future of the Gaza conflict, military conscription and Israel’s increasingly difficult international position.