Netanyahu’s emerging challenger represents his polar opposite, and that may be his appeal

Netanyahu’s Rival Gadi Eisenkot Offers a Contrasting Vision in Israeli Politics

Netanyahu s emerging challenger represents his polar – As Israeli parliamentary elections approach in late October, the political landscape is shifting dramatically. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party has taken a unique approach to bolster its campaign, recently posting a brief yet symbolic message on its X account: “There is no Gadi without Tibi.” The clip, generated by artificial intelligence, features Gadi Eisenkot and Ahmad Tibi, an Arab parliamentarian, standing together before a stormy parliamentary backdrop. The accompanying text asserts, “Eisenkot cannot govern without the Arabs,” emphasizing the former military chief’s reliance on Arab political support. This move underscores Likud’s dual strategy—reinforcing its long-standing anti-Arab rhetoric while positioning Eisenkot as its most formidable contender in the race to succeed Netanyahu.

From Military Commander to Political Challenger

Eisenkot’s rise to prominence has been swift, eclipsing the influence of former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett in recent polls. While his name may not yet be widely recognized abroad, he has become a central figure in Israeli domestic politics, challenging Netanyahu’s decades-long dominance. Advisers within Likud have acknowledged the growing threat Eisenkot poses, with claims that over 400 campaign videos are in the works to highlight his credentials. His party, Yashar (meaning “straight” or “honest” in Hebrew), launched less than a year ago and has steadily climbed from single-digit support to a position of near parity with Likud. This momentum has caught the attention of pollsters, who now project Yashar securing 21 seats in the Knesset, just behind Likud’s projected 23 and ahead of the Bennett-Yair Lapid joint list, which is expected to garner 18.

Initially, Eisenkot was part of a unified anti-Netanyahu bloc formed by Bennett and Lapid, but he chose to break away, running independently. This decision has paid off, as his party’s appeal has surged in recent weeks. The latest Channel 12 poll reveals a stark contrast in public perception: 38% of respondents favor Eisenkot as prime minister, compared to 36% for Netanyahu. Analysts suggest that this shift reflects voters’ growing dissatisfaction with Netanyahu’s leadership style and his reliance on divisive rhetoric.

Styling the Opposition: A Clash of Approaches

Unlike Netanyahu, who has built a reputation for theatricality and sharp messaging, Eisenkot embodies a more subdued and strategic persona. His calm demeanor and focus on process have positioned him as a polar opposite to the incumbent, whose polished international presence and decades of political experience remain unmatched. Campaigns targeting Eisenkot have emphasized his heavy accent in English, contrasting it with Netanyahu’s refined, globally recognized speaking style. Yet, this contrast may be part of Eisenkot’s strength, as his understated approach resonates with voters seeking a more pragmatic leader.

“Gadi wouldn’t strike Iran,” critics have begun to mock, suggesting his lack of assertiveness in foreign policy. However, supporters argue that his measured tactics reflect a commitment to careful decision-making, which could be critical in navigating complex conflicts. This duality has sparked debate, with some questioning whether Eisenkot’s style is a liability or an asset in the race for leadership. His career as a military strategist, spanning years of service in the IDF, has lent credibility to his emphasis on strategic planning over immediate action.

Biographies That Mirror Political Divides

Netanyahu’s background is steeped in privilege and tradition. The son of a historian, he grew up in Jerusalem’s elite circles and earned a reputation for mastering political drama. His military service in the Sayeret Matkal commando unit, a prestigious unit known for its covert operations, reinforced his image as a leader who thrives on high-stakes performance. In contrast, Eisenkot’s upbringing was marked by modesty and resilience. As the second of nine children born to Moroccan immigrants, he was raised in Tiberias and Eilat, regions historically outside the country’s political mainstream. His path to prominence was shaped by his role in the IDF, where he rose through the ranks of the Golani Brigade before becoming chief of staff from 2015 to 2019—under Netanyahu’s leadership.

Netanyahu’s relationship with Eisenkot began during his tenure as defense minister, where Eisenkot was appointed as a key figure in the military hierarchy. In Eisenkot’s 2019 retirement ceremony, Netanyahu praised his service, stating, “Under your command, the IDF carried out great work. We salute you, for your many merits as a fighter and commander.” Yet Eisenkot’s tenure was not without controversy. His handling of the Elor Azaria case in 2016, where a combat medic was convicted of killing a wounded Palestinian in Hebron, became a flashpoint. Despite intense pressure from right-wing factions, including Netanyahu himself, Eisenkot supported the military’s legal process, demonstrating a commitment to fairness that set him apart from his peers.

From Coalition to Opposition: Eisenkot’s Political Evolution

Eisenkot’s transition into politics began in 2022, when he joined the leadership of Benny Gantz, another former military chief, in the formation of a new party. Together, they entered Netanyahu’s emergency war cabinet following the October 7 attacks, which marked a turning point in Israel’s political trajectory. However, Eisenkot’s growing discontent with the government’s approach to the war, particularly its handling of hostages in Gaza, has led to a more critical stance. In a February 2024 letter to Netanyahu and the war cabinet, he argued that the conflict had been driven by tactical gains rather than a clear strategic vision. “The war is being conducted through tactical gains, without significant moves to achieve strategic objectives,” he wrote, a sentiment that has resonated with many Israelis disillusioned by the government’s perceived lack of direction.

This critique has fueled Eisenkot’s political momentum, positioning him as a leader who prioritizes long-term planning over short-term victories. His ability to balance military expertise with political acumen has earned him a following among voters who see him as a refreshing alternative to Netanyahu’s style. While Likud continues to leverage its historical ties and anti-Arab messaging, Eisenkot’s party is gaining traction by appealing to a broader audience. The contrast between their approaches is now a defining feature of the upcoming elections, with each candidate representing a distinct vision for Israel’s future.

A New Era of Political Rivalry

As the October 7 war deepens, the political rivalry between Netanyahu and Eisenkot has intensified. Likud’s messaging has evolved, shifting its focus from Bennett to Eisenkot, highlighting the former military chief’s role as a potential successor. This change signals a recognition of Eisenkot’s growing influence and a strategic effort to counter his appeal. His combination of military background and political pragmatism has created a narrative that challenges Netanyahu’s image as a leader defined by charisma and spectacle.

While Netanyahu remains a household name, Eisenkot’s ascent underscores a broader trend in Israeli politics. Voters are increasingly drawn to leaders who emphasize transparency, strategy, and a willingness to address internal divisions. Eisenkot’s rise has also been fueled by his ability to navigate complex relationships, including his collaboration with Arab lawmakers like Tibi. This inclusivity contrasts with Likud’s traditional stance, offering a new dimension to the election campaign. As the Knesset race approaches, the battle between these two figures is likely to shape not only the outcome of the elections but also the direction of Israeli policy for years to come.

“Gadi wouldn’t strike Iran,” critics have mocked, suggesting his lack of assertiveness in foreign policy. Yet, his measured approach may be seen as a strength by those who value careful decision-making over aggressive posturing.

In a country often defined by polarized politics, Eisenkot’s emergence as a rival to Netanyahu represents a significant shift. His ability to blend military experience with political strategy, while maintaining a commitment to Arab cooperation, has redefined the dynamics of the Israeli electoral landscape. As campaigns intensify, the question remains: will Eisenkot’s approach appeal to a weary electorate, or will Netanyahu’s decades of experience secure his re-election? The answer may lie in the evolving preferences of voters who are looking for a leader who can balance Israel’s internal and external challenges with a fresh perspective.