Alternative for Israel? Reading the narrow daylight in Israel’s next election
On Oct. 27, Israelis go to the polls in an election that has become a referendum on whether Benjamin Netanyahu stays in power, after more than 19 years in office in separate stints, with his corruption trial under way and the argument still raging over his responsibility for the failures that preceded the attack of Oct. 7, 2023.
But the question that matters most to Palestinians, Egypt and the region reaches beyond Netanyahu’s own political fate. If he goes, does “Netanyahuism” go with him: the flat refusal of a Palestinian state, the widening grip on occupied land, the absolute reliance on brute military force? Or does his successor keep walking the same road?
The map of alliances
Israeli politics splits into two camps. Netanyahu’s bloc includes his Likud party, the far-right Jewish Power and Religious Zionism parties, and the ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) parties Shas and United Torah Judaism. Against it stands a Zionist opposition whose main parties have agreed to work together to bring him down. Its leading figures are former army chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot, former prime minister Naftali Bennett, Knesset opposition leader Yair Lapid, former defense minister Avigdor Liberman, and Yair Golan, who leads The Democrats, an alliance of Labor and Meretz.
So far, the polls give neither camp a clear route to forming a government.
To the right of both camps stands People of Israel, founded by former brigadier general Ofer Winter. He says he will recommend only Netanyahu for prime minister, but he breaks with the Haredi parties and insists on ending their draft exemption.
Kan, Israel’s public broadcaster, published its latest poll on Oct. 18. It gave Netanyahu’s bloc 51 seats and the opposition 52, with 13 for the two Arab slates and four for the Reservists alliance of Yoaz Hendel and Yaron Zelekha. Neither camp is close to the 61 seats, in the 120-seat Knesset, needed for a stable coalition.
How will the election affect Palestinians?
“The right or Palestine” was one of Netanyahu’s main campaign slogans. He is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and he led Israel through the genocidal war on Gaza and the runaway settlement expansion in the West Bank.
He is not even the hardest-liner in his own camp. National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir wants Israel to occupy Gaza, expel its population and resettle it with Israelis. On Oct. 12, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called for Gaza to be “erased.” Winter says Gaza has only one solution: “emigration.”
The opposition, by contrast, barely mentions the Palestinian question in its campaigns, which fits public opinion. An October 2025 poll by the University of Tel Aviv’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) found that 68% of Jewish Israelis oppose a Palestinian state under any circumstances.
Eisenkot, Bennett and Liberman do not put a fully sovereign Palestinian state in their platforms. Lapid and Golan sound more open to a settlement someday, but neither offers a plan to end the occupation soon. Liberman backs so-called “voluntary emigration” from Gaza and calls objections to it political and moral hypocrisy.
The two camps are also close on West Bank settlements, though they talk about them differently. Yashar supports building new ones. Together backs expanding settlements recognized under Israeli law.
The International Court of Justice said in its 2024 advisory opinion that Israel’s settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem were built in violation of international law, and that Israel maintains them in violation of it as the occupying power. Inside Israel, the authorities nominally distinguish between settlements the government has approved and outposts set up without official permits, which Israeli law treats as illegal.
The real differences between the right and the opposition lie mainly in how to run the occupation. Eisenkot supports settlement, yet he has opposed some projects because of their international cost, warned against dismantling the Palestinian Authority, and pledged to confront settler violence. Lapid has called settler attacks “Jewish terrorism.” Bennett has pledged to evacuate outposts that are unauthorized under Israeli law. Golan, unlike the far right, rejects annexing the West Bank and calls for political separation from the Palestinians, with Israel keeping its security arrangements.
Those differences in administration show up in Palestinians’ daily lives. A Palestinian political source, speaking to Al Manassa on condition of anonymity for security reasons, says: “Life won’t be rosy under the opposition, but there is bad and there is worse. The opposition may be more willing to make concessions to its international allies. That could mean curbing settler violence, easing the suffering in Gaza and slowing the current push toward imposing Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank.”
Differences like these could change daily life for Palestinians even if they leave the roots of the occupation untouched. Ali Ibrahim, an activist and social researcher in Gaza, asked that his surname be changed for security reasons. “Of course people in Gaza care about the election, even with everything they’re doing just to meet basic needs,” he says. “I mean, people here spend ten minutes looking for an internet connection to follow the news, after, of course, fifty minutes looking for aid and water and some way to get by. But you can’t separate the two.”
Impact on Egypt and the region
The gaps narrow again on the use of military force beyond Palestinian territory. A June INSS poll found that 59% of Israelis want operations against Hezbollah to continue even if they cause a rift with the United States, including 55% of opposition voters. Another 52% back additional military operations against Iran.
Opposition leaders sound the same notes. Lapid has criticized Israel for not hitting Iran’s energy facilities and oil fields. Liberman has accused the political leadership of tying the army’s hands against Hezbollah. Nothing different should be expected from Eisenkot, the architect of the Dahiya doctrine, which took shape while he headed Northern Command. It answers attacks on Israel with overwhelming firepower and sweeping destruction of infrastructure in the areas they come from, as happened in Beirut’s southern suburbs.
The clearest difference between the camps is how they treat allies. Eisenkot accuses Netanyahu of wrecking Israel’s standing in the world. He has promised to repair its relationships, deepen cooperation with Egypt and Jordan, and negotiate security arrangements in Syria and Lebanon backed by American guarantees.
An Arab diplomat who handles his country’s relations with Israel, and asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of his post, tells Al Manassa: “The current government is trying to please those on its right, even at the cost of regional stability. A government without Smotrich or Ben Gvir would be more rational to talk to.”
Palestinian lawyer and rights advocate Amal Arabi agrees. “Arab governments prefer the traditional Zionist current, which they can deal with, over the extremist one that governs now,” he says.
Even an opposition government, though, would hit issues that are extremely sensitive for Egypt. A Direct Polls survey in June found that 73% of Jewish Israelis support encouraging Gaza’s residents toward “voluntary emigration,” and Liberman has previously proposed moving about a million Palestinians from Gaza to Sinai.
The most sensitive and immediate issue for Egypt is Israel’s recognition of Somaliland in December 2025, which opens a door for Ethiopia to the Red Sea. It has not entered the campaign debate at all. Netanyahu’s bloc has shown no sign of backing off, and the opposition has not objected.
Why do they want to replace Netanyahu?
The right and the opposition are not far apart on the Palestinians or the region. The election is mainly about acute domestic Israeli issues.
The opposition holds Netanyahu responsible for the failures that preceded October 7 and demands an independent official commission of inquiry. It accuses his government of trying to undermine the judiciary’s independence. A second fight is over exempting Haredi men from military service and funding their religious institutions.
Arabi puts it this way: “Netanyahu oversaw the failure of October 7 and tried to take control of the judiciary. Corruption spread under his rule, and he tried to install himself at the top of Israel’s pyramid of power. That’s what made this election something like a referendum on him.”
Haredim make up about 14% of the population. Opposition parties want the draft extended to them, while Shas and United Torah Judaism insist on exempting yeshiva students. But the divide doesn’t map neatly onto the two camps. Winter, who says he will recommend only Netanyahu, demands that Haredim be drafted, which complicates the coalition arithmetic.
Could the Palestinian vote decide it?
Palestinian citizens of Israel number about 1.7 million. Their votes are contested mainly by the United Arab List (Ra’am), led by Mansour Abbas, which joined the Bennett-Lapid government in 2021 and 2022, and by the Joint List, led by Yousef Jabareen. How much either weighs depends on turnout. In 2022 it was 53.2% among Arab voters, against 70.6% overall, after nearly 65% in 2020.
More importantly, the 13 seats the polls give the two Arab slates could break the deadlock arithmetically, though not necessarily politically. Eisenkot, Lapid and Liberman have so far ruled out making Arab parties partners in a government. Abbas says his priority is bringing down Netanyahu’s government, and Jabareen says his list is ready to back any government that does.
On paper, the opposition could muster enough seats to oust Netanyahu and still lack the political agreement to form a government.
Four possible scenarios
Those numbers open four paths. None is a foregone conclusion.
1. Another Netanyahu-led government
if he can bring together his current allies and Winter or other forces. Current policy would then most likely stay on its present course. A bigger role for Ben Gvir and Smotrich could open the door to more settlement and to attempts to impose Israeli sovereignty on parts of the West Bank.
2. An opposition government
if it can pull in more forces, especially the Reservists alliance. It might need outside support from Arab parties, or the backing of Shas and United Torah Judaism. The first runs into positions some opposition leaders have stated publicly; the second into the fight over Haredi conscription.
3. A national unity government
with parties from both camps. In a poll published on Oct. 16, 55% said they would prefer a unity government to new elections if the deadlock holds. And Israel has precedent for parties dropping their electoral red lines once the results are in.
4. Repeat elections,
if every attempt to form a government fails. Netanyahu’s government would stay on as a caretaker government until a replacement is formed.
The Oct. 27 vote may well decide who governs Israel, and how the government deals with the judiciary, the Haredim and Israel’s allies abroad. It does not offer Palestinians a choice between continuing the occupation and ending it.
A Netanyahu defeat could ease settler violence, limit far-right policies and make the government more responsive to American, Arab and international pressure. For the people who live with those policies, these differences are not marginal. But most of the forces competing to govern do not propose ending the occupation, or giving up security control, settlement and military force as the core tools of Israeli policy.
Amal Arabi, the Palestinian lawyer and rights advocate, sums up how he sees the occupied territories:
“Netanyahu may go, but Netanyahuism will remain.”