The election is Israel's first since the Hamas-led attack of October 7, 2023, and the subsequent war against Palestinians in Gaza, which has been described as genocidal. The wider conflict has also seen Israel launch attacks on Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria and Qatar.
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel's longest-serving prime minister, is seeking to extend his tenure after leading the country's most right-wing governing coalition, which brought together far-right ultranationalists and ultra-Orthodox Jewish parties.
Facing an International Criminal Court arrest warrant over alleged war crimes in Gaza and a long-running corruption trial, Netanyahu is fighting for his political survival against an opposition bloc that describes itself as Zionist but has largely embraced a right-wing approach to Israel's challenges.
Questions surrounding alleged security failures before the October 7 attack, disagreements over military service for ultra-Orthodox men and efforts to exclude Arab-led parties from the political process have dominated the campaign.
These issues have further weakened already limited expectations that the election will bring any meaningful improvement to the lives of Palestinians. Deadly attacks continue almost daily in Gaza despite a yearlong ceasefire, while settler pogroms and Israeli army raids have intensified in the occupied West Bank.
Yehouda Shenhav-Shahrabani, a prominent Israeli sociologist, argued that the country's political system remained rooted in Jewish supremacy, regardless of which mainstream party held power.
“The entire Israeli political system operates within the racist framework of Jewish supremacy,” he said.
He added that none of Netanyahu's challengers could genuinely be described as left-wing, arguing that the current situation was not simply the result of Netanyahu or the far right but was rooted in Zionist political thought itself, which he said was structured around the principle of Jewish supremacy.
Israel's shift to the right did not begin with the formation of Netanyahu's latest government in 2022 or the rightward movement that polls indicate followed the Hamas-led attack in 2023.
Instead, the collapse of the peace process with the Palestinians and repeated security crises over several decades have steadily weakened the political centre and left. This shift has coincided with major legislative developments, including the 2018 Nation-State Law, which formally enshrined Jewish supremacy, and the continued expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory, often amid limited or no government restraint.
However, analysts broadly agree that the movement to the right accelerated to unprecedented levels under Netanyahu's latest government, which faced accusations of attempting to reshape the country according to its political and ideological priorities.
Among the most contentious developments were efforts to curtail the Supreme Court's authority to review government actions and the government's disregard for court rulings on the conscription of ultra-Orthodox men. The ultra-Orthodox parties' political support has been crucial to sustaining the governing coalition.
The coalition also included far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, a prominent political provocateur, and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, a leading figure in religious Zionism.
Both ministers secured influential positions in the government and provided crucial backing for Netanyahu's controversial judicial overhaul, launched in the early months of 2023 and continuing to this day.
Netanyahu, who is on trial for bribery, fraud and breach of trust, denies the charges. The judicial overhaul has remained a central source of political controversy.
Ben-Gvir and Smotrich have also encouraged and provided political cover amid escalating violence in the occupied West Bank. They have, meanwhile, helped deflect efforts to hold the coalition accountable for alleged security failures preceding the October 7 attack.
Ahron Bregman, an Israeli analyst and senior teaching fellow at King's College London, told Al Jazeera that a Netanyahu defeat could initially change the country's political atmosphere, particularly given the prime minister's deeply divisive public image.
“If Netanyahu loses the election and, say, [Gadi] Eisenkot becomes the new prime minister, the main initial change will be the atmosphere, the vibe, as Netanyahu stirs deep emotions domestically,” Bregman said.
He described the sharply contrasting attitudes towards Netanyahu among Israelis, saying that many regarded him with extraordinary admiration while others deeply opposed him.
“He's a very divisive figure. A new prime minister is likely to calm things down,” Bregman said.
With the election attracting attention across the Middle East and beyond, analysts argue that its significance extends beyond the candidates and could shape the character and future direction of Israel itself.
Yossi Mekelberg, a senior fellow at Chatham House, told Al Jazeera that the central question was whether Israel would retain a Netanyahu-led government or move towards a system that more fully respected democratic institutions.
“The decision facing Israel of whether to retain a Netanyahu-led government or not is ultimately the decision on whether to live in a functioning democracy or a democracy in name only,” Mekelberg said.
He described the choice as one between maintaining the occupation of the West Bank and annexing the territory entirely, alongside proposals for the population's “voluntary migration” from the area that have been raised by figures within the government.
Bregman said an opposition victory could restore greater respect for institutional processes and the rule of law, contrasting that prospect with Netanyahu's approach to governing. However, he cautioned against expecting a fundamental transformation of Israel's overall political direction.
“Don't be mistaken,” he said. “Israel, particularly after 7 October, turned sharply to the right, and any new government will reflect and mirror this reality.”
Peace Remains Absent From the Election Debate
Analysts and observers say the election offers no meaningful opportunity to challenge the foreign and security policies that have underpinned the killing of more than 74,000 people in Gaza, escalating violence in the West Bank and multiple military campaigns, including the war against Iran. That conflict has disrupted key energy routes and sent global markets reeling.
None of the mainstream candidates contesting the October election has discussed including Arab-led parties in a potential governing coalition.
In Israel's popular media, references to the leaders of Ra'am or the Joint List are frequently used by rival candidates to accuse one another of considering political cooperation with Palestinian politicians, either now or in the past.
Shenhav-Shahrabani said ultra-Orthodox parties would remain acceptable coalition partners after the election, regardless of which political bloc formed the government. By contrast, Arab-led parties representing Palestinian citizens of Israel, who account for one-fifth of the country's total population, would continue to face exclusion under a political system he described as rooted in prejudice.
“The distinction is not between democratic and anti-democratic forces, but between Jews and Palestinians. As long as there is no genuine binational political vision, racism and the systematic restriction of Palestinian rights will remain fundamental features of Israeli society,” he said.
The exclusion of Arab-led parties also shapes the substance of the election campaign. Netanyahu's challengers have largely framed their disagreements with him around questions of competence, the timing of government decisions and accountability for alleged failures preceding the October 7 attack.
For critics, the absence of a substantive debate about the treatment of Palestinians reflects the position of Israel's political mainstream. They argue that the election has not become a referendum on the war in Gaza or the allegations of genocide.
Daniel Levy, a former Israeli government adviser, questioned how the election could be considered a referendum on the issue when the competing political camps had not presented opposing positions on the war or its characterisation.
“How can it be a referendum on genocide, or anything to do with the treatment of Palestinians in Gaza?” Levy asked.
He argued that a genuine referendum would require one side to defend the policy and another to oppose it, while also openly addressing the allegation of genocide.
“You would have to have one side arguing it was a good thing and the other arguing it was a bad thing, let alone acknowledging that it was a genocide. So, no, obviously none of that is on the ballot,” he said.
Levy added that the treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli state and military remained a point of consensus among Zionist parties, with the principal differences concerning the respective roles of the state and settler militias in the oppression of Palestinians.
“The treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli state and military is a consensus among Zionist parties,” Levy said, adding that the differences largely concerned “whether it's the state's job to oppress Palestinians, or if the settler militias also have a role – a significant role – to play”.
As Israelis prepare to vote, the campaign has exposed deep disagreements over leadership, democratic institutions, security accountability and the country's political direction. Yet, according to the analysts cited, the absence of a substantive debate over Palestinian rights and the war in Gaza remains one of the election's defining features.
About The Author
Comment List