(
May 10, 2026
/ JNS
)
As Israel plods toward the Knesset elections that are slated to take place by Oct. 27, campaign confusion is as high as general anxiety. Though the claim that the upcoming vote will be the “most consequential” in the state’s history is typically hyperbolic, the current circumstances contribute to the sense that a seismic shift is on the horizon.
The muddled messaging among candidates stems only partially from the absence of the all-but-defunct debate about Palestinian statehood, especially in the wake of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas massacre.
But even long before thousands of Tehran-backed terrorists from Gaza stormed the border on that fateful Shabbat/Simchat Torah morning—to rape, butcher and kidnap Israeli men, women and children—the fantasy of a “two-state solution” as a path to peace had faded to black.
Even devout Oslo cheerleaders running for office began to avoid the subject. Except, of course, when invoking it to accuse the “colonialist,” “messianic” right in general, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in particular, for preventing harmonious coexistence with the Palestinian Authority. Oh, and for bolstering Hamas in order to maintain the status quo of belligerence in Judea and Samaria.
Most Israelis don’t buy that bull, certainly not at the ballot box. As a result, politicians across the spectrum are now scrambling to distinguish themselves as alternatives to Netanyahu by outdoing him—at his own policy-making. Ironically, this is the only way they think it’s possible to curry favor and garner votes.
This isn’t to minimize the key bones of contention between the opposing sides of the electoral map, however. On the contrary, there are four main issues making dinner parties and family functions difficult during this period.
The first surrounds the war against the Islamic Republic and its proxies in Gaza and Lebanon. The argument focuses on whether—and to what extent—Israel and the United States are winning or will have achieved victory by the date of the election.
The second involves the question of whether it’s the legislature or the “deep state” that’s supplanted Israeli democracy. The left believes the former is the culprit; the right holds the latter accountable.
This fierce disagreement was at the root of the government’s attempt to reform the over-active judiciary and the “anybody but Bibi” protest movement decrying that effort. The controversy was put on hold temporarily by Hamas’s invasion and Israel’s counter-offensive.
As it happens, the massacre was a byproduct of mastermind Yahya Sinwar’s view that the Jewish state was imploding—with leftist pilots and other members of the Israel Defense Forces threatening not to serve in the reserves in the event of judicial-reform implementation—and that this was the perfect opportunity to launch a mass attack.
Thankfully, Sinwar miscalculated. He’s dead and the IDF is very much alive and kicking enemy butt. Still, the internecine battle over the “reign of the robes” has yet to be waged properly, let alone determined.
Which brings us to the third, related, flashpoint of the election: the dispute over the entity that should be charged with investigating the failures of the political, military and intelligence leadership before and during Oct. 7.
The anti-Netanyahu camp is demanding a state commission of inquiry, headed by judges—appointed by the self-anointed president of the Supreme Court—with the authority to subpoena witnesses, compel testimony and submit conclusions (i.e. assign guilt). Supporters argue that only an “independent” judicial body can conduct such a probe credibly.
There’s a hoot, given that the likelihood of the illustrious bench looking in the mirror is next to nil.
It is thus that the other half of the country is adamant about establishing a national commission of inquiry, with a wide range of right-wing and left-wing representatives, including victims of Hamas’s war crimes.
Promoters of this broader-based scrutiny, mainly on the right, contend that responsibility for the debacles in question did not rest solely on elected officials or the military echelon, but was shared in equal, if not greater, measure by the security, legal and media elite.
Last but not least on the minds of voters is the question of Haredi conscription. Before Oct. 7, many Israelis already resented the longstanding exemption of ultra-Orthodox men from compulsory military service. After Oct. 7, amid prolonged reserve duty and a shortage of manpower, frustration turned into fury.
Nor is this grievance specific to secular soldiers and civilians. The national-religious community, whose members combine Torah study with IDF service and have borne a disproportionate share of combat casualties, is livid.
Naturally, the Supreme Court has intensified the confrontation by ordering enforcement measures against Haredi draft evaders and threatening financial sanctions tied to state benefits. Meanwhile, Likud Knesset member Boaz Bismuth has been trying to navigate a compromise bill that would increase Haredi enlistment gradually over the course of the next five years.
Those in favor of the proposed legislation refer to it as the Haredi “draft bill,” while critics call it a “draft-dodging law.” Same set of facts, opposite interpretations.
Speaking of which, a word about the polls is in order. Though it’s not yet clear which parties will ultimately run in the election, what mergers may materialize or who will appear on each slate, pollsters are back in business. ‘Tis the season, after all.
The problem with this isn’t that the surveys presented almost nightly on Israel’s TV stations are inaccurate. No, regardless of the methodology, it’s way too early to predict the outcome of the election, and everybody knows that the data reflect sentiments of a fleeting moment. The trouble in the current cycle is that the polls are producing completely contradictory portraits of reality.
That aired by Channel 12, for instance, has been depicting Netanyahu’s popularity as plummeting, pointing to his inevitable inability to forge a coalition. In contrast, the one broadcast by Channel 14 and i24News shows the prime minister on the way to a comfortable victory and a stable, right-wing majority.
Either way, and no matter how many parties pass the electoral threshold, there are really only two options. As political commentator Mati Tuchfeld wrote this weekend in the Hebrew daily Maariv, “[T]he choice that will face Israel’s citizens in a few months [is] this side or that side. Right or left. Coalition or opposition. Amid the flood of declarations, promises and commitments bandied around in recent days by the various candidates, this simple truth sometimes disappears from view. Perhaps deliberately. Perhaps unintentionally.”
He explained, “The ballots may differ in name and style, but the package is the same. … The internal divisions and balance of power within the next government are less relevant. What matters is bloc voting. And there may be those who try—and perhaps will continue trying until the very last moment—to blur this fundamental reality, to engineer it, to cultivate false hopes among potential voters. But the reality is stark and clear.”