Israel without Netanyahu: Still a nation at war

Two days before Israel’s election, Benjamin Netanyahu shared a post with an AI-generated image of a nuclear explosion over Tel Aviv, alongside a warning that choosing a leader incapable of confronting Iran could expose Israelis to a “second Holocaust.”

Gadi Eisenkot, his leading challenger and a former IDF chief of staff, accused him of threatening voters with mass destruction after failing to achieve his own war aims. “Netanyahu, you’re hysterical,” he wrote.

Netanyahu says only he can finish the job. His opponents say his leadership is endangering Israel. But replacing him would not necessarily bring the country’s wars to an end.

“The way Israel is being led today is dangerous,” Eisenkot told a party conference.

Former prime minister Naftali Bennett offers an equally blunt promise: “The October 7 government destroyed, and the October 27 government will repair.”

Both challengers support confronting Iran and removing Hamas from power.

Their differences with Netanyahu concern what military force should achieve, how long Israeli troops should remain deployed — and which agreements could follow.

Iran: What counts as victory?

“I am personally committed to finishing the job,” Netanyahu said earlier this month. “Finishing the job means toppling the terrorist regime in Iran.”

Eisenkot argues that regime change must come from the Iranian people rather than being imposed militarily. His priorities include eliminating Iran’s nuclear weapons potential and cutting its support for Hezbollah.

That distinction affects how a war is fought, says military affairs analyst Yaakov Lappin.

“If the regime is to be toppled, resources have to be allocated to that, for example within Mossad. If the air force also has the regime as a target, it has to hold bombs in reserve for that. The objectives determine how resources are distributed.”

It also changes the finish line. Weakening Iran’s military capabilities would fall short of a declared objective to bring down its leadership.

But any government would inherit the same regional threats — and a military that has already changed its approach since October 7.

“Over the past three years, the Israeli military has formulated a new doctrine. It is still being adjusted, but the broad outlines are fairly clear, and the military will press hard for the next government to follow it,” Lappin says.

The principle is to confront threats before they become attacks, rather than simply contain them. A different prime minister would still face pressure to act.

Gaza: The Road to Removing Hamas

“From the moment I enter the Prime Minister’s office, within 18 months, Hamas will no longer rule the Gaza Strip,” Eisenkot has pledged.

He leaves open both Trump’s Gaza framework and military force. Bennett would maintain the yellow line separating Israeli- and Hamas-controlled areas until Hamas disarms, while seeking a central role for Egypt — one Cairo has not agreed to assume.

Lappin, meanwhile, expects military operations to continue under any government.

“All the candidates will face the same difficulties, both militarily in removing Hamas from power and politically in finding a new leadership that can actually take over governing Gaza.”

But a change of government could affect the extent and duration of Israel’s military presence, he explains.

“It remains an open question whether a center-left government would be more inclined to withdraw the army more quickly from more areas of Gaza than a Netanyahu government. That is very possible. But who knows how access to all the intelligence would change that assessment?” Lappin says.

West Bank: Partial crackdown, but continued support

Lappin expects a different government to act more quickly and forcefully against the growing wave of attacks on Palestinians by violent settler groups. Something the international community has criticized Netanyahu's government for failing to do. But it will likely not be easy nor quick, since both Eisenkot and Bennet do not want to get into a broader confrontation with the settler community as a whole.

In addition, the existing power dynamics between the PA and Israel in the West Bank will likely not change overnight - and the major threats will not disappear. Meaning Israel’s room for maneuver is rather limited, says Lappin.

A Different Way?

But one man does promise change. Yair Golan, the former deputy military chief who leads the left-wing Democrats, proposes a more explicit diplomatic approach: a new, long-term nuclear agreement with Iran under intrusive inspections; replacing Hamas with a Palestinian technocratic administration in Gaza, backed by regional and international support; and halting annexation moves in the West Bank while strengthening security coordination with the Palestinian Authority and cracking down on violent settlers.

How much of that program he could advance would depend on negotiations with the other parties needed to form a government.

Netanyahu as a barrier

Abroad, Netanyahu’s departure could create an opening even where Israel’s security interests remain unchanged.

He has become the face of the Gaza war. A government without him and his far-right partners could give European and Arab leaders political space to rebuild ties, negotiate over Gaza’s future and pursue regional cooperation.

Some cooperation already takes place away from public diplomacy. The Jerusalem Post reported on October 22, citing a defense official, that Israel was providing intelligence through US mediation to help Saudi Arabia counter the Houthis. The arrangement shows how common threats can bring the countries together without formal diplomatic relations.

Lappin sees a change of government as a possible opening for more public ties, rather than a prerequisite for all cooperation.

“Another government could make it easier to have a more open relationship. Saudi Arabia is clearly waiting for a new government. It looks very bad to be close to Netanyahu, especially in the Arab world. But the United Arab Emirates has maintained its position and its cooperation. It depends on each country’s interests.”

Moving from discreet security cooperation to normalization would still require political decisions. Saudi Arabia’s demand for Palestinian statehood remains at odds with the leading candidates’ positions. Netanyahu’s departure could remove one barrier without resolving that disagreement.

Israel without Netanyahu would still face the same enemies. And with the faces leading the opposition, it means it would still face a similarly hard line. What could change is how far it fights, what it considers victory — and whether a different leadership can turn military gains into agreements.

Don't miss i24NEWS live rolling coverage of the Israeli elections: Exit poll to be published on Tuesday, Oct 27th at 10pm IST/4pm EST