At 66, Eisenkot represents a different generation of leadership from 77-year-old Netanyahu. But his appeal is not simply about age. He is presenting himself as an experienced security leader who understands the realities of war but believes Israel needs a change in political direction. His challenge is particularly significant because Netanyahu has remained one of the most influential figures in Israeli politics for nearly two decades.
Eisenkot’s personal history has also attracted considerable attention. During the Gaza war, he lost his son and two nephews while they were serving in the Israeli military. Their deaths have deeply affected his public image and strengthened his emphasis on national responsibility, military service and rebuilding the country. Although he entered politics before these tragedies, the losses have become an important part of his political journey.
The political situation has now reached a decisive stage. Following Israel’s October 27 election, President Isaac Herzog formally appointed Eisenkot on November 8 to attempt to form the next government. Representatives of parties holding 67 seats recommended him, compared with 46 lawmakers who supported Netanyahu. Seven lawmakers did not recommend either candidate.
However, receiving the mandate does not automatically make Eisenkot prime minister. He must still negotiate with rival political groups and secure the support of at least 61 members of the 120-seat Knesset. His success could reshape Israel’s domestic politics and influence its relationships with Palestinians and neighbouring countries.
Who Is Gadi Eisenkot and How Did He Rise Through Israel’s Military?
Born in Tiberias in 1960 to Moroccan immigrant parents, Eisenkot grew up in Eilat before joining the Israeli military at 18. He began his career in the Golani Brigade, one of the country’s principal infantry formations, and gradually advanced through the military hierarchy.
Over the following decades, he held several important command positions, including leadership of the Golani Brigade and the Northern Command. His career eventually took him to the highest position in the Israeli military.
Eisenkot served as the 21st Chief of the General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces between 2015 and 2019. During this period, Israel faced increasing security challenges along its northern borders, particularly from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iranian military activity in Syria.
His military doctrine emphasised preventing hostile organisations from establishing permanent military infrastructure close to Israeli territory. He supported strong military responses when Israel believed its security was threatened.
His experience dealing with Hezbollah, Iranian-backed groups and regional military developments has become a major part of his political credentials.
Unlike politicians who have spent their entire careers in parliament, Eisenkot can point to decades of experience in military planning, intelligence assessments and national security operations.
He entered politics in 2022, joining Benny Gantz’s National Unity alliance. Following the October 7 Hamas attacks in 2023, he became part of Netanyahu’s emergency government and participated in discussions surrounding the Gaza war.
However, disagreements over the direction of the conflict and the absence of a convincing long-term plan for Gaza eventually pushed him away from the government. He left alongside Gantz in June 2024.
In September 2025, Eisenkot established his own political movement, Yashar, positioning it as an alternative focused on national recovery, institutional accountability and restoring public confidence.
How Did the Gaza War Change Eisenkot’s Personal Life?
One of the most painful chapters in Eisenkot’s life unfolded in December 2023, when his family suffered devastating losses during the Gaza war.
His youngest son, Master Sergeant Gal Meir Eisenkot, was serving with the elite Maglan commando unit when he was killed in northern Gaza on December 7, 2023. He was just 25 years old.
The circumstances were particularly difficult because Eisenkot was serving in Netanyahu’s emergency government and participating in high-level security discussions while his son was fighting in Gaza.
The tragedy became even more devastating when his nephew, Sergeant Maor Cohen Eisenkot, aged 19, was killed in Gaza the following day.
In November 2024, another nephew, Captain Yogev Pazy, was also killed while fighting in northern Gaza.
In total, Eisenkot lost three close family members during the conflict.
The deaths placed him in a position familiar to thousands of Israeli families who have lost relatives during military operations. However, his situation was particularly unusual because he was simultaneously involved in the political and military decision-making surrounding the war.
He has spoken publicly about the difficulty of continuing his responsibilities after losing his son and has emphasised that the sacrifices made by Israeli soldiers must lead to a better future for the country.
These personal experiences have become central to his public identity. Nevertheless, his political ambitions predate the Gaza war. His decision to enter politics was already underway before October 7, while the subsequent losses appear to have given greater emotional significance to his calls for national reconstruction.
His political argument is that Israel cannot continue indefinitely with military confrontations while avoiding difficult questions about leadership, accountability and the country’s future.
Why Is Netanyahu Facing a Serious Political Challenge?
Netanyahu has dominated Israeli politics for years, building his leadership around national security, economic management and his international relationships.
However, the October 7 attacks created major questions about the government’s security preparedness and the decisions that preceded the Hamas assault.
The prolonged Gaza war, disputes over military objectives, the fate of Israeli hostages and disagreements over the future administration of Gaza have further intensified political divisions.
Eisenkot has attempted to turn these issues into the foundation of his campaign.
His message combines military experience with demands for political accountability. He has argued that Israel needs leadership capable of restoring public confidence, strengthening national institutions and developing a clearer strategy for the country’s security.
The October 27 election delivered a complicated result.
Netanyahu’s Likud emerged as the largest individual party with 27 seats, but his wider religious-nationalist bloc secured only 53 seats, short of the 61 needed for a parliamentary majority.
Eisenkot’s Yashar party won 21 seats, while the four-party bloc opposing Netanyahu secured 48 seats. Two Arab-led parties won a combined 19 seats.
The numbers created an unusual situation in which Netanyahu remained the leader of the largest political party but Eisenkot received more recommendations from lawmakers for the opportunity to form a government.
President Herzog consequently gave Eisenkot the first chance to assemble a coalition.
Can Eisenkot Build a Coalition Without Netanyahu?
This is arguably the biggest challenge facing the former military chief.
Although 67 lawmakers recommended him, his established political bloc controls only 48 seats. He therefore needs additional parliamentary support to reach the required majority.
There are three broad possibilities.
The first involves securing support from Arab-led political parties. Their combined 19 seats could provide a parliamentary majority, potentially allowing Eisenkot to form a government without Netanyahu.
However, this arrangement faces significant resistance among some Jewish-led opposition parties. Eisenkot has also faced difficult questions about the extent of cooperation he is willing to accept.
The second possibility involves negotiating with ultra-Orthodox Jewish parties that previously supported Netanyahu. Such an arrangement could provide the additional seats needed to establish a government.
But the biggest obstacle would be military conscription.
Eisenkot has argued that national service obligations should apply more broadly, while ultra-Orthodox parties have traditionally defended exemptions for religious students. The issue has become particularly sensitive after years of military operations and growing demands to expand the armed forces.
The third possibility is a national-unity government involving members of Netanyahu’s Likud party.
Netanyahu has publicly called for a unity arrangement, but Eisenkot has pledged to replace him and has rejected serving in a government under his leadership. This makes a conventional power-sharing agreement difficult.
Eisenkot has nevertheless promised to explore creative and unconventional arrangements to establish what he describes as a national emergency government.
He has 28 days to form a coalition, with a possible additional 14-day extension. If he fails, Netanyahu could receive another opportunity. Failure by both candidates could eventually lead to another election.
Will an Eisenkot Government Change Israel’s Policy Towards Gaza?
The future of Gaza will be among the most important challenges confronting any incoming Israeli government.
Eisenkot has criticised Netanyahu for failing to establish a convincing political and administrative plan for the territory after the military campaign.
His approach suggests that he would place greater emphasis on connecting military operations with a defined political outcome.
A possible government under his leadership could seek closer coordination with the United States and regional partners over Gaza’s future administration, reconstruction and security arrangements.
President Herzog has specifically highlighted the need to advance Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza plan and the proposed Board of Peace.
However, Eisenkot is not a political leader who advocates abandoning Israel’s security priorities. He has maintained that Hamas must lose its military and governing capabilities.
Consequently, a change in leadership would not necessarily mean an immediate end to Israeli military operations or a fundamental shift towards Palestinian statehood.
The important difference could lie in how Israel pursues its objectives, manages international pressure and works with regional partners.
For Palestinians, the central question will remain whether a new Israeli government is prepared to offer a meaningful political horizon beyond military security arrangements.
What Will Happen to Israel’s Relations With Lebanon and Syria?
Eisenkot’s military background makes his approach to Israel’s northern neighbours particularly important.
During his years in uniform, he dealt extensively with Hezbollah’s military expansion and Iranian influence in Syria.
He has been associated with a military doctrine that favours overwhelming force against infrastructure used by hostile armed groups. This approach has attracted international criticism because of the potential consequences for civilian populations.
A government led by Eisenkot would therefore not automatically signal a softer Israeli approach towards Lebanon.
He is likely to continue demanding restrictions on Hezbollah’s military capabilities and preventing the organisation from rebuilding infrastructure that could threaten northern Israel.
The challenge will be finding a balance between maintaining Israeli security and avoiding another prolonged confrontation that could destabilise Lebanon further.
Syria presents a different but equally complicated situation.
Israel has traditionally opposed Iranian military entrenchment in Syrian territory and the transfer of advanced weapons to Hezbollah.
Eisenkot’s experience suggests that preventing hostile military infrastructure from developing near Israel’s borders would remain an important priority.
However, diplomatic engagement with regional governments could offer opportunities to reduce tensions and establish more predictable security arrangements.
Could Saudi Arabia and Other Gulf States Improve Relations With Israel?
A possible change in Israel’s government could create an opportunity to rebuild relationships with Arab countries that have become increasingly uncomfortable with the consequences of the Gaza war.
Jordan and Egypt are particularly important because both maintain formal peace agreements with Israel.
Their relationships with Jerusalem have experienced considerable strain over the conflict, Palestinian displacement concerns and regional security.
An Eisenkot government could attempt to improve coordination with Cairo and Amman on border security, Gaza reconstruction and preventing further escalation.
The Gulf states present an even bigger diplomatic opportunity.
Saudi Arabia and Israel have previously been involved in discussions about establishing formal diplomatic relations, but the Gaza conflict has complicated those efforts.
Riyadh has repeatedly linked progress towards normalisation with the need for a credible pathway towards Palestinian statehood.
Eisenkot could attempt to revive regional diplomacy through closer coordination with Washington and Gulf governments.
The Abraham Accords, which established diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab countries, could provide a foundation for additional cooperation.
However, Saudi-Israeli normalisation would remain difficult without progress on the Palestinian question.
For neighbouring Arab governments, the identity of Israel’s prime minister may matter less than whether the incoming administration changes its policies towards Gaza, the West Bank and regional security.
What Does Eisenkot’s Rise Mean for Israel’s Future?
Gadi Eisenkot’s emergence as Netanyahu’s principal challenger represents an important moment in Israeli politics.
He brings a combination of military experience, personal sacrifice and a political message focused on national recovery. His background could appeal to voters seeking a leader with security credentials who also promises changes to the country’s political institutions.
But the challenges ahead are enormous.
He must overcome disagreements among potential coalition partners, resolve the politically explosive question of military conscription and develop a credible approach towards Gaza and Israel’s regional relationships.
Even if he successfully forms a government, his ability to introduce sweeping changes will depend on the strength and stability of his parliamentary coalition.
For Netanyahu, the immediate challenge is preventing the opposition from assembling a majority that could end his long political dominance.
For Eisenkot, the challenge is proving that his military leadership can translate into successful civilian governance.
And for Israel’s neighbours, the coming political transition could determine whether the country moves towards greater diplomatic engagement or continues along a path dominated by military confrontation.
Eisenkot’s personal story is one of the most striking elements of this political contest: a former army chief who lost his son and two nephews in the war is now attempting to lead the country through its aftermath. But his real legacy will depend on what he can achieve beyond the battlefield — whether he can build a stable government, restore public confidence and create a more predictable future for Israel and the wider Middle East.
