If Netanyahu goes, will Israel's wars and woes end? As Israelis prepare to vote on October 27, 2026, this question captures the uncertainty surrounding Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political future. Former military chief Gadi Eisenkot and his Yashar party have emerged as strong challengers, but replacing Netanyahu would not automatically transform Israel’s security policies or resolve its conflicts. The outcome will depend not only on the election but also on coalition negotiations and competing national priorities.
Netanyahu’s Leadership Faces a Defining Test
Netanyahu’s political standing has been weakened by the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack, the subsequent wars in Gaza and Lebanon, regional confrontation with Iran, corruption proceedings and international criticism of Israel’s military conduct. His opponents question his government’s security record and accountability.
Recent polls frequently place Eisenkot’s Yashar among the leading parties, sometimes ahead of Likud. However, Israel’s 120-member Knesset requires a minimum of 61 seats to form a majority government. Neither political bloc has a guaranteed path to that threshold, making smaller parties and post-election negotiations crucial.
Eisenkot Promises Different Leadership, Not Peace
A former Israel Defense Forces chief of staff, Eisenkot campaigns on accountability, national unity and more disciplined decision-making. His approach, however, remains firmly security-oriented.
He has pledged to end Hamas’s rule in Gaza within 18 months of taking office. Like Netanyahu, he insists that Hamas must disarm and warns that military operations could resume if security objectives remain unmet.
Gaza, Iran and the Palestinian Question
The differences between the leaders concern strategy and governance more than a fundamental departure from existing security doctrine.
· Gaza: Eisenkot promises a defined timetable and greater flexibility on rebuilding arrangements, but does not offer an immediate Israeli military withdrawal.
· Iran: He has questioned the wisdom of renewed military action without compelling evidence of an imminent nuclear threat, distinguishing his approach from Netanyahu’s more confrontational rhetoric.
· West Bank: Eisenkot opposes unauthorised outposts and settler violence, although he supports Jewish settlements that comply with Israeli law.
· Palestinian statehood: Both leaders oppose an independent Palestinian state, leaving little prospect of an immediate revival of the two-state peace process.
What a Change Could Mean for India
India’s strategic partnership with Israel spans defence, technology, agriculture and water management. An Eisenkot-led government would likely preserve these relationships, although New Delhi would watch developments in regional security and humanitarian diplomacy closely.
Beyond One Leader: The Real Test Ahead
Netanyahu’s departure could alter Israel’s governing style, coalition partners and diplomatic engagement with Western and Arab governments. Yet the central disputes over Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Palestinian sovereignty would remain formidable.
Ultimately, Israel’s crisis extends beyond one politician. Changing the leadership may change how conflicts are managed; ending them requires political solutions that neither leading contender has fully offered.
(With agency inputs)
