Gadi Eisenkot: Israel’s Anti-Netanyahu Challenger

Published: 15 October 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

Gadi Eisenkot has emerged as one of the most closely watched figures in Israel’s election campaign, presenting voters with an alternative to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that is built less around ideological transformation than around personal character, military experience and a promise of more restrained government.

The former Israeli military chief of staff has been described by supporters and political observers as almost the opposite of Netanyahu in style. Where Netanyahu is highly polished, media-conscious and politically combative, Eisenkot is widely portrayed as modest, direct and somewhat unpolished. His supporters see those qualities as evidence of authenticity at a time when Israeli politics has been marked by bitter rivalries, political manoeuvring and prolonged controversy.

Yet beneath that contrast lies a more complicated political picture. Eisenkot has become an attractive figure for Israelis who want a change from Netanyahu, but on some of the most consequential questions facing the country, particularly the future of the Palestinians and Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, he has deliberately avoided committing himself to a clear alternative.

Eisenkot entered politics only four years ago after a long military career. His party, Yashar, takes its name from a Hebrew word associated with being straight, honest or direct, reflecting the image that his political campaign has attempted to build around him.

His appeal is closely connected to his personal background. Unlike Netanyahu, whose family background includes an academic father and a long history in Israel’s political establishment, Eisenkot was born into a Mizrahi Jewish family from Morocco and grew up in a more working-class environment. He entered the army as an infantryman and gradually rose through the ranks before eventually becoming Israel’s chief of staff.

That journey has helped create an image of a politician who is closer to ordinary Israelis. Political analyst Dahlia Scheindlin has argued that his relatively modest background contributes significantly to the perception that he is more connected to the wider population.

For voters exhausted by political drama, that image may be as important as specific policy proposals. Eisenkot is frequently described as empathetic, straightforward and professional, while his military background has helped reinforce an impression that he is disciplined and less interested in political theatrics.

His campaign has also focused heavily on accountability over the failures surrounding the Hamas attack of 7 October 2023. Eisenkot supports a full investigation into the intelligence and security failures that allowed the devastating attack to take place, an issue that remains politically sensitive and emotionally powerful across Israel.

On domestic politics, he has also supported ending exemptions from military service for ultra-Orthodox Israelis. The issue has become one of the most divisive questions in Israeli society, particularly as the country continues to face demands on its military during prolonged periods of conflict.

However, Eisenkot’s position becomes considerably less straightforward when the discussion turns to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

He has declined to endorse the two-state solution in explicit terms, despite the idea remaining central to international diplomatic efforts aimed at resolving the conflict. During the campaign, Eisenkot argued that the conflict had become deeply rooted in religious and national identities and that anyone believing an agreement could be reached immediately was seriously mistaken.

That position has left him open to criticism from those seeking a fundamental change in Israel’s approach to the Palestinians. While he presents himself as an alternative to Netanyahu, opponents question whether an Eisenkot government would actually pursue a substantially different strategy on the conflict.

His position on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank is similarly complicated. Eisenkot opposes the planned E1 settlement development, which critics say could make the creation of a viable Palestinian state more difficult. At the same time, however, he has not rejected Israeli settlement in the West Bank altogether.

One of the clearest differences between Eisenkot and Netanyahu concerns control over the occupied West Bank. Eisenkot has strongly criticised the decision to place far-right politician Bezalel Smotrich in charge of significant aspects of West Bank administration.

He has said he would reverse that arrangement and restore the army’s role in overseeing the territory. Such a move could mark a significant change in tone and administration, particularly amid international criticism of settler violence and growing concern over conditions faced by Palestinians in the West Bank.

But political analysts caution against interpreting this as evidence that Eisenkot is preparing to pursue a comprehensive peace initiative.

Professor Yossi Mekelberg of Chatham House has described the approach associated with Eisenkot and his allies as one focused primarily on better management of the country rather than a fundamental change in its direction. In that interpretation, Eisenkot could offer Israelis a government that functions more professionally and attracts less international criticism without necessarily resolving the central Israeli-Palestinian dispute.

His military background also makes it difficult to classify him as a traditional dove.

As commander of Israel’s northern front during the 2006 Lebanon war, Eisenkot was associated with the military strategy later known as the Dahiya doctrine, which involved the use of overwhelming force against areas considered to be supporting hostile armed groups. The doctrine has been heavily criticised because of its implications for civilian infrastructure and casualties.

His approach to the Gaza war has nevertheless demonstrated a degree of military realism. Eisenkot previously argued that Israel was unlikely to achieve “total victory” over Hamas and urged greater attention to the lives of Israeli hostages held in Gaza.

His position on the hostages has a deeply personal dimension. His son, Gal Meir Eisenkot, died from wounds sustained during an operation in Gaza in late 2023 while Israeli forces were attempting to recover the bodies of hostages.

The experience has shaped perceptions of Eisenkot as a politician who understands the human cost of war, although it has not transformed him into an opponent of military force. His criticism of Netanyahu has instead focused partly on how military power should be used and what strategic objectives Israel can realistically achieve.

Eisenkot has also criticised Netanyahu’s call for Israel to become a “super-Sparta”, warning against a vision of the country becoming increasingly militarised and defined by its ability to intimidate its neighbours.

If Eisenkot were to become prime minister, observers expect one of his earliest challenges would be addressing settler violence in the West Bank. A stronger response could improve Israel’s strained relationships with foreign governments and reduce some of the international pressure surrounding the country.

But analysts remain uncertain about whether he would take a second step towards addressing the wider Palestinian question.

That uncertainty is central to the debate over his candidacy. For many voters, Eisenkot represents a chance to restore professionalism, stability and normality after years of political conflict. For others, the absence of a clear programme for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict means that replacing Netanyahu may change the tone of government without fundamentally changing its policies.

His ability to build a governing coalition could also determine how much freedom he would actually have. Even if his party performs strongly enough to lead coalition negotiations, Israel’s fragmented political system means that any government he forms could depend on partners with very different priorities.

That could force Eisenkot to compromise on issues ranging from settlements and religion to security policy and relations with the Palestinians.

For supporters, however, the appeal may be precisely that he promises less drama rather than a political revolution. After years dominated by Netanyahu’s highly personalised leadership, corruption allegations, coalition crises and bitter political disputes, some Israelis may simply want a government that appears quieter and more predictable.

Former diplomat Shai Bazak has suggested that Eisenkot’s less charismatic personality could actually become an advantage. After a dominant political leader, voters may deliberately choose someone who appears less theatrical because they want stability and relief from constant political confrontation.

That helps explain the unusual nature of Eisenkot’s campaign. Much of his popularity is rooted not in a sweeping ideological programme but in the qualities voters believe he represents: honesty, restraint, professionalism and concern for ordinary people.

Yet that image carries its own risk. Political analyst Scheindlin has warned that voters may be projecting their hopes onto Eisenkot, imagining that he will restore normality, professionalism and social stability simply because of his personality and military background.

The central question, therefore, is not whether Eisenkot is different from Netanyahu. In style, character and political presentation, the differences are considerable. The harder question is how far those differences would translate into changes in policy.

An Eisenkot government could potentially bring a less confrontational tone, stronger action against settler violence, greater emphasis on institutional accountability and a different approach to Israel’s relations with the international community.

But on the defining issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, he has so far maintained considerable ambiguity.

That leaves Eisenkot occupying an unusual position in Israel’s election campaign: a leading opposition figure who offers a clear contrast with Netanyahu in personality and political style, while leaving voters with significant uncertainty over how far he would actually change the country’s direction.