In Israel, stakes are high, change has constraints

Going by pre-election estimates, neither Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor his principal challenger, Gadi Eisenkot, former chief of the General Staff of the Israel Defence Forces, is expected to secure a majority in the 120-member Knesset in Israel. Such an outcome would be far from unusual — Israel held five general elections between 2019 and 2022. Netanyahu is seeking a seventh term as PM, and the election is widely being viewed as a referendum on his handling of Hamas’s horrific terror attack three years ago and Israel’s devastation of Gaza in response, which has drawn widespread international condemnation. Eisenkot, too, has made the October 7 attacks central to his campaign, holding Netanyahu responsible for what he describes as the country’s gravest security failure. With both leaders likely to depend on smaller parties to cobble together a governing coalition after the vote on October 27, that question may not be unambiguously settled.

In any case, whoever takes the reins of power, little will change in Israel’s foreign policy. Netanyahu and Eisenkot may differ on domestic issues, from exemptions for ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) men from military service to the powers of the judiciary. But on Palestine, Iran and the wider region, their differences lie more in the means than the ends. Eisenkot has been critical of Netanyahu’s handling of the Gaza war, but like all Jewish parties except left-wing Democrats, he opposes Palestinian statehood. On Iran, he has called Netanyahu “unfit for launching another operation” without ruling out future strikes to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In Lebanon and Syria, he supports retaining what Israel calls “security zones”. And on the West Bank, while pledging to crack down on settler violence, he has remained ambiguous on settlement expansion. A change of guard after the election may alter tactics, but is unlikely to fundamentally change Israel’s strategic course.

Overall Analysis

The editorial examines Israel’s upcoming election and questions whether a change in political leadership would bring any significant transformation in the country’s domestic and foreign policies. It focuses on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his principal challenger, Gadi Eisenkot, arguing that even if Netanyahu loses power, Israel’s broader strategic direction is unlikely to change substantially.

The opening paragraph establishes the political uncertainty surrounding the election. Neither leader is expected to secure an outright majority in the 120-member Knesset, Israel’s parliament. The reference to previous elections highlights the country’s history of political instability and coalition-based governments. The author describes the election as a referendum on Netanyahu’s handling of the October 7 Hamas attacks and Israel’s subsequent military campaign in Gaza. By presenting the contrasting responsibilities attributed to the two leaders, the editorial explains why national security is central to the electoral contest. However, the likely need to form a coalition with smaller parties means that the election may not produce a clear or decisive verdict on Netanyahu’s leadership.

The second paragraph shifts the focus from electoral politics to the continuity of Israel’s foreign policy. The author distinguishes between changes in political leadership and changes in strategic direction. Although Netanyahu and Eisenkot may disagree on domestic matters, including military-service exemptions for ultra-Orthodox Jewish men and the powers of the judiciary, their positions on Palestine, Iran and regional security remain broadly similar.

The writer supports this argument by examining several policy areas. Eisenkot criticises Netanyahu’s handling of the Gaza war but, according to the editorial, opposes Palestinian statehood. On Iran, he questions Netanyahu’s suitability to launch another military operation while leaving open the possibility of future strikes. In Lebanon and Syria, he supports retaining Israeli-designated security zones. His position on settlement expansion in the West Bank also remains unclear, despite his promise to address settler violence.

These examples establish the editorial’s central distinction: political change does not necessarily mean policy change. A new leader might alter the methods, timing or presentation of military and diplomatic decisions without abandoning the underlying objectives.

The title reinforces this argument. “Stakes are high” refers to the serious consequences of the election for Israel’s security, political stability and relations with neighbouring territories. “Change has constraints” suggests that any incoming leader would face ideological, strategic and political limitations that restrict the scope of reform.

From a language perspective, the editorial uses formal political vocabulary, comparisons and carefully qualified claims. Expressions such as “cobble together a governing coalition” make the discussion of parliamentary arithmetic more vivid, while “change of guard” refers to a transfer of political leadership. The repeated use of qualifications such as “unlikely to” and “may alter tactics” gives the argument a measured, analytical character rather than presenting its predictions as certainties.

Overall, the author argues that the election could change who governs Israel, but it is unlikely to resolve the deeper disagreements surrounding Palestine or fundamentally redirect the country’s regional security strategy.

2. Important Vocabulary (5)

3. Conclusion and Tone

Conclusion: The editorial argues that Israel’s election may determine its next prime minister, but a leadership change is unlikely to produce a fundamental shift in foreign policy. Netanyahu and Eisenkot differ in their handling of certain issues, yet their positions on Palestine, Iran and regional security show considerable overlap. The broader message is that electoral outcomes alone cannot guarantee major policy changes when ideological commitments, security concerns and political constraints remain firmly in place.

Tone: Analytical, cautious and critical.

• Analytical: Compares the candidates’ positions across domestic and foreign policy.
• Cautious: Avoids assuming that an electoral victory will automatically bring significant change.
• Critical: Questions whether a new leader would meaningfully alter Israel’s existing strategic course.

Key takeaway: A change in leadership can change the methods of governance without necessarily changing its fundamental objectives.