Five challenges that could decide Netanyahu’s political future as Israel votes

Three years after the Hamas-led attacks on Israel that triggered the war in Gaza, Israeli voters head to the polls today to decide whether Benjamin Netanyahu should remain prime minister or whether the country should usher in a new era of politics.

People walk past a Likud party campaign billboard featuring Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu alongside opposition party leaders and bearing the Hebrew slogan "Right or Palestine," ahead of Israel's general election, in Beni Brak, Israel, (AP Photo/Oded Balilty)The October 27 election is shaping up as a referendum on Netanyahu’s leadership, with security, military conscription, relations with Israel’s Arab minority, judicial reform and the cost of living among the key issues confronting voters.

Also Read | October 7 attack, Eisenkot rivalry, public polls: Netanyahu's ultimate test in Israel Netanyahu’s Likud party faces a challenge from the centrist Yashar party, led by former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, as well as other opposition parties.

The race is tight: a recent Channel 12 poll projected Yashar at 23 seats and Likud at 22, with Netanyahu and Eisenkot tied at 38% on who voters prefer as prime minister. Yet the election’s outcome will depend on more than which party secures the most votes.

Israel’s proportional-representation system makes coalition negotiations crucial, leaving both Netanyahu and his rivals facing opportunities and risks as they attempt to assemble a governing majority. Here are five key challenges that could determine Netanyahu’s political future.

Security remains the defining issue of the election, with Netanyahu facing questions over the failures that preceded Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack, in which around 1,200 people were killed and 251 were taken hostage, according to Israeli figures.

Netanyahu’s critics have argued that the government failed to protect Israelis from the unprecedented assault. The attack and the subsequent wars have also raised questions about the country’s security preparedness, the government’s accountability and its ability to provide lasting security.

Eisenkot has pledged to establish a state commission of inquiry into the failures, a step Netanyahu has so far refused to take. The prime minister, however, has sought to emphasise Israel’s military operations and strategic gains since October 2023, presenting his experience in office as an advantage at a time of continuing regional instability.

The war’s impact is particularly visible in northern Israel, where residents near the Lebanese border have endured years of rocket attacks, displacement and uncertainty. Sigal Malachi, a plant nursery owner in the border region, told AFP that residents had lost their sense of security after October 7.

“After October 7 we don’t sleep well anymore,” she said, according to the news agency. Maxim Zarbaylov, a longtime Likud voter in Nahariya, told AFP he was considering voting for Eisenkot instead, blaming Netanyahu for the security failure.

“What happened on October 7, Bibi could have prevented it, but he didn’t,” Zarbaylov said, referring to Netanyahu by his nickname. His remarks reflect the disillusionment among some voters who traditionally supported the prime minister’s party.

Others, however, continue to argue that Netanyahu’s hard-line approach is necessary to protect Israel. ALSO READ | Corruption, ICC warrant for war crimes and other charges: Benjamin Netanyahu and the complicated arrest question The challenge for Netanyahu is to persuade voters that his record in the subsequent wars outweighs the failures surrounding the October 7 attack.

For the opposition, the task is to turn public anger into a sufficiently broad parliamentary majority. The question of who serves in the Israeli military has emerged as another major election issue, intensifying longstanding tensions between secular Israelis and the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community.

Historically, many Haredi men engaged in full-time religious study have benefited from exemptions or arrangements that kept them out of compulsory military service. The policy has become increasingly contentious during the prolonged conflict, as the Israel Defense Forces have faced sustained demands on regular troops and reservists.

Critics argue that the burden of military service is unfairly distributed, particularly among those who have completed compulsory service and been repeatedly called up as reservists.