OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Trump Advisers Eye Alternatives to Netanyahu Before Israeli Vote

4 sources · updated 2026-10-24
Left 25% Center 50% Right 25%
1 left · 2 center · 1 right

What happened

Former Israel Defense Forces chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot is leading opinion polls as a challenger to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israeli elections set for Tuesday. Eisenkot, who later served as a minister in Netanyahu’s government after the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas attacks, lost his 25-year-old son, Gal Meir Eisenkot, and two nephews, Yogev Pazi and Maor Cohen Eisenkot, in the Gaza war. He has called Netanyahu an “anti-leader,” accused him of stalling U.S.-backed Gaza frameworks after an initial ceasefire and hostage exchange, and stressed “deep bonds” with the United States, pointing to an April Pew poll that put American public support for Israel at 37 percent, down from 55 percent four years earlier. Israelis vote for parties rather than individuals; the president then gives blocs 28 days to form a government in the 120-seat Knesset, so the leader of the largest list is not automatically prime minister. Eisenkot has praised President Donald Trump’s regional role, including a February 2025 hostage agreement that freed Ohad Ben Ami after 491 days—Ben Ami holds the symbolic last place on Eisenkot’s party list—while Trump has endorsed Netanyahu’s reelection.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 4 articles

3 of 4 articles cite a named source for the story. It started with unnamed sources; a named source appeared the next day. Neta Molcho denied part of it on the record.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 3 of 4
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Gadi Eisenkot, JD Vance and Trump
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 4
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
Credits another outlet 0 of 4
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 2 of 4
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
On-record denial 1
A named person or institution says the claim, or part of it, is not true. It is on the record — someone signed their name to it — but it is not confirmation, so it never counts toward On the record. Criticizing or dissenting from a decision is not a denial. The count is how many people or institutions deny it; each is listed with the first article that carried the denial. Here: Neta Molcho (Axios, Oct 25, 14:44 UTC)
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 23, 04:01 UTC by New York Times, with no named source. First named source the next day, from Axios.
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Right-leaning coverage is simply more complete on the US-ties challenge, which left-leaning coverage omits entirely. A reader of left-leaning coverage would not know Eisenkot is appealing to American audiences at all. The portrait in the New York Times is of a candidate unlike the prime minister whose low-key style worries supporters. Right-leaning coverage in the New York Post centers his claim of "deep bonds" with the United States and his charge that Netanyahu stalled US-backed frameworks for Gaza. Right-leaning coverage leads with wartime family deaths and with praise for Trump. Left-leaning coverage leads on temperament and never mentions those deaths or the American president. Has Netanyahu answered the accusation that he stalled US-backed Gaza deals to keep his coalition intact?
Bottom line

The New York Times never tells you Eisenkot is running on US-Israel ties. Only the New York Post reports he is selling a promise to keep Israel’s word to Washington on Gaza as the case against Netanyahu.

The receipts — 4 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • Eisenkot said his message to the American public is the importance of the deep bond between Israel and the United States official statementin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Eisenkot accused Netanyahu of stalling US-backed Gaza frameworks after committing to the initial ceasefire and hostage exchange official statementin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • US public support for Israel fell to 37% in a Pew poll in April, compared to 55% four years earlier numberin New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Eisenkot’s 25-year-old son, Gal Meir Eisenkot, was killed fighting in Gaza individual casein New York Post · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Left View
The New York Times frames the contest as a study in opposites, presenting Eisenkot as someone who “couldn’t be more unlike Netanyahu.” It centers whether that contrast can prevail, noting that he has labeled the prime minister an “anti-leader” while his “low-key campaigning style is worrying supporters.”
The Right View
The New York Post portrays Eisenkot as a candidate who “may be the only candidate capable of defeating Netanyahu,” defined by wartime loss and alliance politics while U.S. support is “under severe strain.” It foregrounds his message that Israel is “the only democracy in the Middle East” and a “tremendous strategic asset,” his agreement with Trump’s “peace through strength,” and his description of a joint strike on Iran as having “exceeded anything one could have imagined.” The paper highlights his charge that Netanyahu stalled U.S.-backed Gaza frameworks “for political reasons,” was “effectively a hostage to his coalition partners,” and preferred “a policy of ambiguity,” plus Eisenkot’s pledge that a future government “will pursue a much more realistic policy than the current government” and that he “will ensure that Israel fulfills its commitments to the United States.”
Our Take (balanced)
The left-leaning coverage’s strongest argument is that this is a leadership-character race: Eisenkot has branded Netanyahu an “anti-leader” and is cast as his opposite, yet the same account’s best evidence of vulnerability is internal—supporters already worry a low-key style will not convert that contrast. The right-leaning coverage’s strongest argument is that Eisenkot is running on alliance management and the war’s aftermath, citing on-the-record pledges to honor U.S. Gaza frameworks, praise for Trump’s hostage and Iran moves, and the claim that Netanyahu subordinated those files to coalition survival. The central unresolved tension is whether the vote is a referendum on Netanyahu’s fitness as a leader or a choice about who can pair military toughness with a more deliverable U.S. and postwar policy—especially because the party-list system can deny the premiership even to the leading list.

4 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.