AN ELECTION THAT COULD CHANGE ISRAEL

Imagine travelling halfway around the world, spending thousands of dollars on flights, taking time off work, leaving your family behind – all for one reason: to cast a single vote in an election.

That is exactly what thousands of Israelis living overseas did in October 2026.

Why? Because they believed the future direction of their country was at stake. As well as the future of all Jewish and Israeli men and women living abroad.

On October 27, Israelis went to the polls in the first national election since the October 7 Massacre. It was an election taking place after years of war, national trauma, political controversy, rising Antisemitism and growing international pressure.

For many, this was more than a choice between political parties. It was a referendum on Benjamin Netanyahu, his leadership, his government’s decisions and the direction in which Israel was heading.

But here is the interesting part: Netanyahu’s Likud remained the largest party, and yet the election opened the door to a possible change of government.

So what exactly happened?

What were the issues that mattered most to Israeli voters? How many people voted? Why did so many Israelis fly home from overseas? And could a new government actually change the way the world sees Israel?

Let’s take a closer look.

WHAT WERE ISRAELIS REALLY VOTING ABOUT?

To understand this election, we need to understand the Israel of 2026.

Israelis have spent the last three years living with the consequences of October 7, the deadliest attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust, followed by prolonged military conflict against Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The country has experienced repeated military mobilisations, families separated by war, communities evacuated from their homes, economic pressure and deep political divisions.

And for many voters, the central question was simple:

Can the person who led the country through this period continue to lead it into the future?

There were several major issues shaping the election.

1. October 7 – security, responsibility and leadership

October 7 was perhaps the most important political dividing line.

Many Israelis wanted answers about how Hamas managed to penetrate Israel’s border, attack peaceful communities and military installations, murder hundreds of civilians and take 251 hostages into Gaza.

Critics of Netanyahu argued that he had to accept political responsibility for the security failures and establish an independent inquiry, a Royal Commission, into what happened.

They also questioned his handling of the hostage crisis and the subsequent war.

His supporters, however, argued that Netanyahu had confronted unprecedented security threats, achieved significant military results against Israel’s enemies and possessed the experience needed to protect the country.

This was not simply a disagreement about military strategy. It was a debate about accountability, trust and leadership.

2. Military service – who carries the burden?

Another enormous issue was the exemption of many ultra-Orthodox Jewish men, known as Haredim, from compulsory military service.

Israel has mandatory military service for most Jewish men and women, and reservists have been repeatedly called up during the war.

For many secular and religious-nationalist Israelis, the situation had become increasingly difficult to accept.

Why should some young Israelis spend years serving in the military, risking their lives and putting their careers on hold, while another section of society receives broad exemptions?

The debate is about more than military manpower. It touches on equality, religion, national responsibility and the social contract between Israeli citizens.

Gadi Eisenkot promised to end the existing de facto exemptions, while Netanyahu’s traditional ultra-Orthodox political partners wanted to preserve them.

This issue became particularly important because the military was facing serious manpower shortages.

3. The economy and cost of living

Israel is a successful, technologically advanced economy, but that does not mean ordinary Israelis are financially comfortable.

Housing, food, childcare and everyday expenses have placed considerable pressure on households.

The prolonged wars have also created enormous economic costs, including military expenditure, reserve duty, lost working days and the disruption of businesses.

People were asking whether the government was doing enough to protect their standard of living.

4. Religion, politics and the judiciary

Israel’s judicial overhaul remained another important dividing line.

In 2023, Netanyahu’s government proposed changes that would significantly alter the balance of power between the government and the judiciary.

Supporters argued that elected representatives should have greater influence over judicial decisions and appointments.

Opponents feared that the changes would weaken democratic checks and balances and undermine the independence of the Supreme Court.

The issue sparked some of the largest demonstrations in Israel’s history.

Although it became less prominent during the subsequent wars, it remained an important concern, particularly among centre-left voters.

5. The question of Israel’s future and the Palestinians

Interestingly, international audiences might assume that the Israeli election was primarily about Gaza, the Palestinians and the possibility of a Palestinian state.

But the reality was more complicated.

The election debate focused much more heavily on security, leadership, military service and the economy.

Neither of the two principal political camps was campaigning on establishing a Palestinian state, and there was no major political consensus for returning to the old peace process.

In fact, following the October 7 massacre, not many Israelis believe in the peace process anymore. As long as Hamas is still standing, ruling Gaza and gets the support from the majority of Palestinians including those living in the West Bank, there is no way Israelis will support the Two State Solution. Nonetheless, there is no Palestinian leadership anywhere to be found that is willing to compromise. Israelis understand there is currently no partner for peace on the other side of the border, and possibly there never was.

This is an important distinction.

The political debate inside Israel does not necessarily follow the same priorities as the political debate taking place in London, Sydney, New York or Paris.

And that difference is essential if we want to understand Israeli society rather than simply interpret it through international headlines.

WHAT DID THE ELECTION ACTUALLY PRODUCE?

Let’s look at the numbers.

Israel has a parliamentary system. Citizens vote for political parties, and those parties compete for 120 seats in the Knesset, Israel’s parliament.

To form a government, a coalition needs the support of at least 61 members.

Netanyahu’s governing bloc secured 53 seats.

The opposition bloc seeking to replace him secured 48.

The Arab-led parties secured a combined 19 seats.

Neither of the two main blocs reached the 61-seat threshold.

And this is where Israeli coalition politics becomes particularly interesting.

Even though Likud remained the largest individual party, that did not automatically mean Netanyahu would remain prime minister.

In Israel, the ability to assemble a parliamentary majority matters more than simply finishing first.

On November 8, President Isaac Herzog formally gave Gadi Eisenkot the mandate to attempt to form a government.

Eisenkot has 28 days, with a possible additional 14-day extension, to put together a coalition.

He has received recommendations from lawmakers representing 67 seats, compared with 46 who recommended Netanyahu.

But there is a major complication.

The Arab-led parties are potentially important to the arithmetic of a new government, yet cooperation with them is politically controversial, and some of Eisenkot’s potential partners have their own reservations.

There are also disagreements over military service exemptions, religious parties and the composition of any future coalition.

So, can Netanyahu’s era come to an end? Yes, it is a genuine possibility. But it is not guaranteed.

The election has created an opening for a change of government, not yet a completed transfer of power.

If Eisenkot cannot assemble a coalition, Netanyahu could receive another opportunity, or Israel could eventually face another election.

HOW MANY ISRAELIS VOTED?

Despite years of conflict and political division, Israeli voters turned out in significant numbers.

Approximately 5.72 million votes were cast, representing a turnout of around 77.9% of eligible voters.

That is the highest turnout in decades.

Think about that for a moment.

Despite the war, the security situation, political disagreements and the enormous pressure on everyday life, almost eight out of every ten eligible voters participated.

It is a significant demonstration of civic engagement.

But there was another remarkable aspect of this election.

Thousands of Israelis travelled from overseas specifically to vote.

Why?

Because Israel has a relatively restrictive system for overseas voting.

Unlike many democracies, most Israeli citizens living abroad cannot simply walk into an embassy, cast a ballot and return home.

Voting overseas is generally restricted to specified categories of official representatives and their families.

For most other Israeli citizens, the only way to participate is to return to Israel.

And thousands decided to do exactly that.

A campaign called Fly&Vote encouraged Israelis living abroad to return home and exercise their democratic right. An estimated 80,000 Israelis eventually travelled back to vote. They came from the United States, Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere.

Some travelled for more than 30 hours.

Some took unpaid leave from work. Others paid expensive airfares and organised childcare simply to make the journey.

One of the remarkable aspects of this campaign was that it demonstrated how emotionally connected many Israelis remain to their country, even when they have built lives thousands of kilometres away.

But the message is clear: for tens of thousands of Israelis living abroad, this election was important enough to justify travelling halfway around the world.

And perhaps that tells us something about Israel that is often missing from international political coverage.

Whatever their political opinions, many Israelis feel a profound personal connection to the future of their country. They also feel that whatever is happening in the Middle East impacts them directly overseas. A new government may bring a change in Israel’s international diplomacy, public relations and tone down the unjustified hatred towards Jews all over the world.

WILL A CHANGE OF GOVERNMENT CHANGE ISRAEL?

Now comes the most important question.

If Gadi Eisenkot succeeds in forming a government and Netanyahu leaves office, what would actually change?

First, there could be a change in political leadership and style.

Eisenkot is a former Chief of Staff of the Israel Defence Forces. His political background, military experience and public approach differ from Netanyahu’s long-established political leadership.

A new government could prioritise a different approach to national accountability, military service, judicial reform and relations between different sections of Israeli society.

It could also attempt to rebuild public confidence in government institutions following the events of October 7.

But we need to be realistic.

Changing the prime minister does not automatically change the country.

Israel’s security challenges do not disappear when a new coalition takes office.

Hamas remains a security concern. Hezbollah remains a threat. Iran’s regional ambitions remain a major strategic issue.

Israel will still need to make difficult decisions about Gaza, its northern border, regional diplomacy and its relationship with the United States and Europe.

A new government does not necessarily mean a dramatic shift to the political left.

The 2026 election did not produce a clear public mandate for abandoning Israel’s security doctrine. There is considerable continuity between the main political camps on questions of national security and the future of the Palestinian territories.

A change in government may therefore bring significant changes in leadership and domestic policy without fundamentally changing Israel’s strategic outlook.

Peace is the ultimate goal of any Israeli government, but the opponents of Peace still remain across the border. Will they change their strategy? Will they reach out their hand to form long term relationships? Or would the exact opposite happen?

WILL THE WORLD CHANGE ITS VIEW OF ISRAEL?

And now we reach the question that matters particularly to our international audience.

Will a new Israeli government improve Israel’s image around the world?

The short answer is: potentially, but not automatically.

Israel’s international reputation has deteriorated significantly in recent years.

The war in Gaza, the humanitarian crisis, images circulating on social media, diplomatic confrontations and allegations concerning Israeli military conduct have all contributed to growing international criticism.

A June 2026 Pew Research Centre survey covering 36 countries found that a median of 67% of adults held an unfavourable view of Israel.

These figures demonstrate the scale of the reputational challenge Israel faces.

But here is something important.

International perceptions of Israel are not necessarily determined by who sits in the prime minister’s office.

A new government could create an opportunity to rebuild diplomatic relationships, improve communication, address international concerns and demonstrate a different approach to regional diplomacy.

It could also change the tone of Israel’s international engagement.

But if the security situation remains unchanged, military operations will inevitably continue, and criticism will not simply disappear.

Equally, Israel’s international reputation is influenced by factors that no Israeli government can completely control: geopolitical interests, historical narratives, political ideologies, media coverage and the way the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is understood around the world.

Sadly, the world’s public opinion is mainly shaped by the fierce propaganda against Israel on social networks, traditional media outlets, biased and hateful podcasters and Islamic agendas led by Qatar, Iran and Türkiye – as part of the Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of Western societies.

A new government cannot stop the hatred spread against the Jews.

We should also distinguish between criticism of a particular Israeli government, criticism of Israeli military policy, opposition to Zionism and hostility towards Israel’s very existence.

These are not identical positions, and treating them as interchangeable makes it harder to understand the international debate.

A new government might improve relations with some countries and sections of the international community.

But it cannot guarantee that those who fundamentally oppose Israel’s existence will suddenly change their minds.

And perhaps that is one of the most important lessons of this election:

Israel can change its government, but it cannot control the world’s opinion of it.

WHAT DOES THIS ELECTION TELL US ABOUT ISRAELI DEMOCRACY?

There is one final issue worth discussing.

The 2026 election has demonstrated something important.

Millions of citizens participated in a national election. Political parties competed, voters expressed their preferences, and a parliamentary majority is now being negotiated.

Remember – Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. No other country in the region had managed to maintain a liberal democracy since its foundation in 1948.

Democracy is not simply about voting every few years. It depends on accountability, independent institutions, equality before the law for all citizens, freedom of expression and the ability of different communities to participate in public life.

One particularly interesting development is the record representation won by Arab-led parties, which together secured 19 seats out of 120. 16 percent of the Israeli parliament is held by Arab representatives. If anyone was ever believing that Israel is an Apartheid state, this parliamentary reality shatters it whole.

Whether these parties become part of a governing arrangement, support a government from outside, or remain in opposition will be a major test of Israel’s political system and its ability to accommodate its different communities.

The coming weeks will tell us much more about the country’s political direction.

A COUNTRY STILL SEARCHING FOR MEANING

So, what should we take away from Israel’s 2026 election?

First, Israelis voted in enormous numbers, with turnout approaching 78%.

Second, the election was shaped by much more than the international debate about Gaza and the Palestinians. Security, October 7, leadership, military service, the economy and the judiciary were central concerns.

Third, Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud remained the largest party, but the political arithmetic created a genuine opportunity for a new government under Gadi Eisenkot.

And fourth, even if the government changes, Israel’s international reputation will not transform overnight.

But perhaps the most interesting aspect of this election is not who wins the political negotiations.

It is what the election tells us about the Israeli people.

A society that has experienced extraordinary trauma, faced repeated security threats, endured years of political division and still turned out in huge numbers to determine its future.

A society in which people travelled from the other side of the world because they wanted their voices heard.

A society that is clearly divided over its leadership and its future, but remains deeply connected to the question of what Israel should become.

And perhaps that is the distinction we should remember when discussing Israel.

There is a difference between the Israeli government, the Israeli military, Israeli society and the millions of individual people who make up the country.

They are not one and the same.

Criticising a government does not mean rejecting an entire country. Supporting Israel’s existence does not mean agreeing with every government decision. And questioning a military policy does not mean questioning the right of Israelis to live in security.

The real challenge for Israel is not simply to decide who governs next.

It is to rebuild trust within its own society, protect its security, strengthen its democratic institutions and find a way forward in an increasingly complicated region.

And the challenge for the rest of the world is to look beyond political slogans, headlines and social media narratives, and understand the complexity of the country and its people.

Because if we really want to understand Israel, we need to look beyond the government.

We need to look beyond the headlines.

And we need to look beyond the narratives.