Why Gadi Eisenkot’s rise could threaten Benjamin Netanyahu’s grip on Israel

Former Israeli military chief Gadi Eisenkot has emerged as Benjamin Netanyahu’s most serious political challenger ahead of Israel’s late-October parliamentary election, reshaping a race that had previously centered on former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and opposition leader Yair Lapid. Eisenkot’s Yashar party, founded less than a year ago, is now polling close to Netanyahu’s Likud and ahead of the Bennett-Lapid joint list in several surveys.

The shift matters because Eisenkot represents a different kind of threat to Netanyahu. He is not trying to outshine Israel’s longest-serving leader with political theater, fluent English or dramatic campaign performance. His appeal rests on the opposite qualities: military credibility, understated style, Mizrahi background, personal sacrifice in the Gaza war and a reputation for seriousness rather than showmanship.

A recent Channel 12 poll projected Yashar at 21 seats in the 120-seat Knesset, just behind Likud at 23 and ahead of the Bennett-Lapid alliance at 18. The same poll found Eisenkot narrowly ahead of Netanyahu when voters were asked who was better suited to serve as prime minister. For a leader who has survived countless challengers, Netanyahu is now facing a rival who may be harder to dismiss because Eisenkot’s strength comes from security credentials and emotional resonance, not ideological novelty.

Why Gadi Eisenkot has become Netanyahu’s most serious challenger

Gadi Eisenkot’s rise is important because it changes the opposition equation in Israel. For months, the anti-Netanyahu camp looked fragmented between Bennett, Lapid, Benny Gantz and newer centrist alignments. Eisenkot had been seen as a respected figure but not necessarily the central challenger. That has changed quickly as his Yashar party has moved from single-digit polling into the top tier of Israeli politics.

The name of his party, Yashar, means straight or honest in Hebrew. That branding matters because it speaks directly to a voter mood shaped by war fatigue, distrust of political maneuvering and frustration with Netanyahu’s long dominance. Eisenkot’s supporters are betting that Israelis want steadiness more than spectacle after years of crisis.

Netanyahu’s own campaign appears to recognize the shift. Likud has begun targeting Eisenkot directly, including messaging that links him to Arab lawmakers and questions whether he could form a government without Arab party support. That tactic is familiar. Netanyahu has often used warnings about Arab political influence to rally right-wing voters and pressure centrist rivals.

The fact that this messaging is now aimed at Eisenkot rather than Bennett or Lapid shows how the race has changed. Likud is treating Eisenkot as the main threat because his profile may allow him to reach voters who were never fully comfortable with the traditional center-left opposition.

How Eisenkot’s military record complicates Netanyahu’s security advantage

Netanyahu has built much of his political identity around security, deterrence and international leadership. Eisenkot challenges that advantage because he is not a civilian critic attacking from the outside. He is a former Israel Defense Forces chief of staff who served from 2015 to 2019 and was appointed under Netanyahu himself.

That background makes it harder for Likud to portray him as weak on national security. Eisenkot rose through the Golani Brigade, commanded senior military formations and helped shape Israeli doctrine in Lebanon and Gaza. His record includes the controversial “Dahiyeh doctrine,” associated with overwhelming force against areas used by militant groups, a stance that gives him hawkish credibility even among voters who may distrust softer opposition figures.

This is why Eisenkot’s rise does not necessarily signal a leftward turn in Israeli security policy. He has criticized Netanyahu’s leadership and strategy, but he is not campaigning as a dovish figure. He has rejected demands for a Palestinian state as irrelevant in the current environment and has criticized Netanyahu for what he sees as excessive willingness to bend to United States pressure during ceasefire negotiations.

That makes him a more complex challenger. Western observers hoping for a dramatic moderation in Israeli regional policy may be disappointed. Eisenkot could change Israel’s leadership style and coalition structure without significantly softening the country’s security posture. His appeal inside Israel partly depends on that distinction.

Why personal loss in Gaza has strengthened Eisenkot’s political story

The Gaza war has reshaped Eisenkot’s public identity in deeply personal terms. His youngest son, Gal, was killed in Gaza in December 2023 while serving in the military. Two of Eisenkot’s nephews were later killed in combat. These losses have given his political story emotional force in a society where military service and bereavement carry enormous public weight.

That personal sacrifice contrasts sharply with one of Netanyahu’s vulnerabilities. Netanyahu’s son Yair spent a significant portion of the war in Miami and did not serve in reserve duty, a fact that has been noted in Israeli political discourse. The contrast is politically sensitive because Israeli voters are judging leaders not only by ideology, but by whether they and their families shared the burden of war.

Eisenkot’s grief also gives him credibility when he criticizes the government’s conduct of the war. He joined Netanyahu’s emergency war cabinet after the October 7 Hamas attack, but later became increasingly critical of the lack of a clear strategy, especially around the hostages and the war’s endgame. When he and Benny Gantz left the war cabinet in June 2024, they cited the absence of a viable strategic direction.

This personal and political history allows Eisenkot to speak as both a former general and a bereaved father. That combination is difficult for Netanyahu to counter because it cannot easily be dismissed as opportunism. It gives Eisenkot an emotional connection with voters exhausted by war but still demanding security.

Why Eisenkot’s Mizrahi background could matter in Israeli electoral politics

Eisenkot’s background may also carry major political significance. He is the son of Moroccan immigrants, raised outside Israel’s traditional elite centers in Tiberias and Eilat. Mizrahi Jews, whose families came from the Middle East and North Africa, have long been a core part of Likud’s political base. Israel has never had a Mizrahi prime minister.

That background gives Eisenkot a possible opening into constituencies that the center and center-left have often struggled to reach. Netanyahu’s opponents have repeatedly failed to break Likud’s emotional and cultural bond with Mizrahi voters, especially those who see Netanyahu as a defender against old Ashkenazi elites and left-liberal institutions. Eisenkot complicates that narrative because he does not fit the familiar opposition stereotype.

He also presents himself as a military man from the periphery rather than a polished establishment operator. That can help him connect with voters who respect toughness and authenticity but are tired of Netanyahu’s constant political drama. In a race shaped by personality, biography can become strategy.

This does not mean Mizrahi voters will abandon Likud in large numbers. Netanyahu’s bond with the base is deep, and Likud’s campaign machine is highly skilled at turning identity politics against challengers. But Eisenkot’s life story gives him a kind of cultural legitimacy that Bennett, Lapid and Gantz never fully possessed.

How Netanyahu is trying to define Eisenkot before he defines himself

Netanyahu’s campaign is moving quickly to define Eisenkot before he can consolidate his image. Likud’s message tying Eisenkot to Arab lawmaker Ahmad Tibi is designed to warn right-wing voters that a government led by Eisenkot would depend on Arab parties. This is a familiar Netanyahu tactic, and it has worked before against centrist opponents.

The strategy is simple: make the election less about Netanyahu’s record and more about the supposed instability or illegitimacy of the alternative. If Likud can persuade voters that Eisenkot cannot form a government without Arab political support, it may blunt his appeal among soft-right and security-minded voters.

Likud has also circulated attacks on Eisenkot’s English and international communication skills, contrasting him with Netanyahu’s polished global presence. This angle aims to remind voters that Israel depends heavily on United States support and must be represented by someone who can command international attention.

But those attacks carry risk. Eisenkot’s quieter style may be part of his appeal. After years of Netanyahu’s theatrical politics, some voters may prefer a less dramatic figure. Mocking his accent or understated manner could reinforce the contrast that helps him: Netanyahu as the consummate political performer, Eisenkot as the serious soldier.

Why coalition arithmetic remains Eisenkot’s biggest obstacle

Even if Eisenkot continues gaining in the polls, forming a government will be difficult. Israel’s parliamentary system requires coalition building, and no major party is close to winning a majority on its own. A viable anti-Netanyahu government would likely need support from a wide range of parties across the center, right, left and possibly Arab political factions.

That is where Netanyahu still has an advantage. He is one of the most experienced coalition builders in Israeli history, and his political survival has often depended on exploiting divisions among rivals. Opposition parties may agree that Netanyahu should leave power, but they may not agree on security, religion and state, judicial policy, Palestinian issues or the role of Arab parties in government.

Eisenkot’s decision to run independently rather than join Bennett and Lapid has helped him rise, but it also creates fragmentation. Polls suggest the anti-Netanyahu camp may approach or exceed Netanyahu’s bloc in seats, yet still struggle to produce a stable governing majority. That was the weakness of previous efforts to oust Netanyahu, including the short-lived Bennett-Lapid government that came to power in 2021.

The central issue is not only whether Eisenkot can beat Likud in public perception. It is whether he can build a coalition that survives the pressure Netanyahu will apply during and after the campaign.

What should readers watch as Israel’s election race develops?

The next test will be whether Eisenkot’s polling momentum holds once Likud’s attacks intensify. Netanyahu has seen many challengers rise and fall, and his campaign apparatus is built to turn rivals into risks. If Eisenkot remains near Likud in the polls through the summer, the election could become a direct contest between Netanyahu’s political experience and Eisenkot’s credibility as a wartime alternative.

The Bennett-Lapid alliance will also matter. If it continues losing ground to Yashar, opposition voters may consolidate behind Eisenkot. If Bennett and Lapid recover, the anti-Netanyahu camp may remain divided, weakening its ability to present one clear alternative. Polls showing that a merged opposition list could underperform separate lists add another complication.

Likud’s Arab-party attack line will be a major signal. If the message gains traction, Eisenkot may be forced to clarify whether he would rely on Arab parties to form a government. If he distances himself too much, he may reduce coalition options. If he leaves the door open, Netanyahu will use it to pressure right-leaning voters.

The war record will remain central. Netanyahu will campaign as the leader who confronted Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. Eisenkot will argue that his military experience and personal sacrifice give him the credibility to correct Netanyahu’s failures. The election may therefore become less about right versus left and more about who Israelis trust to manage security after years of war.

Eisenkot’s rise does not guarantee Netanyahu’s defeat. Netanyahu remains a master of political recovery, and Israeli elections are rarely decided by a single poll. But the emergence of a challenger who is hawkish, understated, Mizrahi, bereaved and personally different from Netanyahu has changed the race. For the first time in years, Netanyahu may be facing an opponent who threatens him not by imitating him, but by offering voters a sharply different model of leadership.

Key takeaways from Gadi Eisenkot’s rise against Benjamin Netanyahu

• Gadi Eisenkot has emerged as Benjamin Netanyahu’s main challenger ahead of Israel’s late-October parliamentary election, shifting the opposition race away from Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid.
• Eisenkot’s Yashar party, founded less than a year ago, is now polling close to Likud and ahead of the Bennett-Lapid alliance in several major Israeli surveys.
• A recent Channel 12 poll projected Yashar at 21 Knesset seats, just behind Likud at 23 and ahead of Bennett-Lapid at 18, showing that Eisenkot has become a serious national contender.
• Eisenkot narrowly led Netanyahu in the same poll on who is better suited to serve as prime minister, giving his campaign a credibility boost that goes beyond party-seat projections.
• His military record as a former Israel Defense Forces chief of staff makes it harder for Likud to portray him as weak on security, even though Netanyahu has long dominated that issue.
• Eisenkot’s personal losses in the Gaza war, including the death of his son Gal and two nephews, have given his criticism of Netanyahu’s war leadership emotional weight among Israeli voters.
• His Mizrahi background as the son of Moroccan immigrants could help him compete for voters who have traditionally formed part of Likud’s cultural and electoral base.
• Netanyahu’s campaign has already begun attacking Eisenkot by linking him to Arab lawmakers and questioning whether an Eisenkot-led government would depend on Arab party support.
• Eisenkot’s rise does not necessarily signal a softer Israeli security policy, because he remains a hawkish former general who helped shape hardline deterrence doctrines.
• Israel’s election outcome will depend heavily on coalition arithmetic, because even strong polling may not translate into a stable anti-Netanyahu government without support across deeply divided political blocs.