Middle East policy experts offered differing assessments on Thursday of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s prospects in next week’s election, with some suggesting his political experience could carry him to another victory despite unfavorable polling, while others warned that neither his coalition nor the opposition may secure enough seats to form a government.

Speaking at the Hudson Institute in Washington ahead of Israel’s Oct. 27 election — the country’s first since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attacks — David Makovsky, the Ziegler distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy; Michael Doran, a senior fellow and director of the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East at Hudson; and David Wurmser, a senior analyst for Middle East affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, examined the political divisions and security concerns shaping the race. The discussion was moderated by Hudson senior fellow Ludovic Hood.

Makovsky said the opposition bloc led by former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot has maintained a lead of roughly four or five seats in most polls, but neither side currently appears positioned to secure the 61 seats needed for a majority in Israel’s 120-member Knesset.

With smaller parties potentially determining the outcome, Makovsky suggested Netanyahu could remain in office even without securing a majority.

“I think that’s the zone we’re in: a minority government of full rights that has legal authority but doesn’t have political durability versus a caretaker government, and that seems to be Netanyahu’s strategy,” Makovsky said. “I don’t have to win this election; I just have to block you from winning.”

Makovsky also noted that President Donald Trump’s endorsement of Netanyahu over the weekend had not produced an apparent boost in recent polling, despite the prime minister’s hopes that American support would strengthen his electoral position.

Doran questioned, however, whether polls showing an opposition advantage accurately reflect the electorate, arguing that Israeli media outlets sympathetic to different political camps have produced sharply divergent projections.

“I don’t believe any of the polling,” Doran said. “If you look at the polls coming out of the mainstream media … they have Eisenkot winning … and then if you look at Channel 14, the Fox News equivalent [in Israel], Netanyahu is gonna win by a clear majority.”

Wurmser said the election also reflects a broader shift in Israeli political attitudes following years of war.

“Israel’s political spectrum has shifted rightward. It hasn’t translated into an electoral shift because the left parties have shifted rightward to some extent,” Wurmser said. “The points of view on the right side of the spectrum and the left side of the spectrum are to the right of where they were four years ago for obvious reasons.”

He said the continued exemption of Haredi men from military service is a source of frustration among Israelis serving extended periods in the reserves, and has also fueled tensions between ultra-Orthodox and national-religious communities.

“The second thing on people’s minds is they want the wars over, but they want [Israel] to win,” Wurmser said. “They don’t want to just give up. They want to go all the way, and there is frustration, and I think Netanyahu has been hurt by these ceasefires.”

The panelists also differed over whether Netanyahu’s wartime leadership has positioned Israel to capitalize on its military successes diplomatically. Makovsky argued that the prime minister has struggled to strengthen relationships with regional leaders despite Israel’s military achievements.

Doran argued that Netanyahu’s political experience and leadership during the war could prove decisive, even as the opposition seeks to hold him accountable for the security failures leading up to the Oct. 7 attacks.

“This is an election about Netanyahu,” Doran said. “For a lot of Israelis, it’s Netanyahu or anybody but Netanyahu.”

Doran acknowledged that some Netanyahu supporters hold him partially responsible, while arguing that he remains more politically capable than his rivals. “He is more talented, more experienced than anyone else on the Israeli stage,” Doran said.

“He’s the most influential prime minister of the last 20 years, or single most influential Israeli of the last 20 years, either the most influential or the second-most influential prime minister in Israel’s history,” Doran said. “But when it comes down to it, people look and they see Netanyahu is one of the most talented politicians on the global stage, not just in Israel.”

Makovsky said Israel’s military successes needed to be converted into political gains, recounting an analogy he said an Arab interlocutor had used: “At a certain point, you have to cash in your chips because if you don’t cash in the chips, the chips are worthless,” he said.

He suggested an Eisenkot-led government could take several relatively straightforward steps that the Netanyahu government has not to improve Israel’s diplomatic standing, including stronger action against violence by Israeli settlers in the West Bank.

“There are things he can do that are low-hanging fruit that, in my view, will change things,” Makovsky said. “For example, getting a police minister to deal with the lawlessness in the West Bank and saying, if you burn a home of a Palestinian, you go to jail, and they will shut this down real fast.”

He also argued that renewed engagement with the Palestinian Authority could help advance normalization with Saudi Arabia without requiring Israel to immediately pursue a two-state solution.

“We know Trump is desperate to [secure Saudi-Israel normalization], and MBS, [Crown Prince] Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, wants to do it, but they need some political cover of some dialogue with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank,” Makovsky said. “But the point is, it could change the view of Israel. It would stop the bleeding first of all in [the U.S.]. I’m talking about the public standing.”

Makovsky further suggested Eisenkot would seek greater cooperation with the Trump administration over Gaza, including an Egyptian effort to train Palestinian police as part of efforts to demilitarize Hamas. He said Israel would pull back from the enclave only if that effort succeeded.

“I think working with the Trump administration on that is something Eisenkot will try to do,” Makovsky said. “I think he will try to look for common cause.”

Meanwhile, Doran disputed the idea that changes in Israeli leadership or policy would substantially improve Western public opinion, “because a lot of Western public opinion is baked in because of Western ideologies that really have nothing to do with Israel.” 

He also argued that Israeli opposition to a two-state solution has become deeply entrenched across much of the political spectrum, limiting the prospects for a major policy shift regardless of who wins.

As the discussion concluded, the panelists offered their predictions for the election, with Makovsky suggesting that neither bloc would secure an outright victory.

“I think the [likely outcome] is … the minority government, caretaker government … No one wins outright, and it is possible that there could be another election within the next year,” Makovsky said.

Wurmser was somewhat more optimistic about Netanyahu’s chances but acknowledged that obstacles still remain.

“My prediction is, I think the right will still squeak through enough to block a left-wing government, possibly to form a coalition,” Wurmser said. “But I think we’re also looking quite possibly at new elections in a few months because it will be difficult for Bibi to form a coalition cleanly.”

Doran, meanwhile, offered the most definitive prediction.

“Netanyahu by a nose,” he said.