Has Bibi the magician run out of tricks – and if so what does future hold for Israel?

This uncanny ability to overcome every obstacle to the continuance of his political career has earned Netanyahu the epithet “the magician” – a term of admiration that may be undercut with more than a suggestion of sleight of hand or even outright dishonesty.

And it is true that time and again, when his career appears finished, he reaches into his hat and produces yet another rabbit, another coalition, another comeback.

For his loyal supporters, it is the ultimate demonstration of resilience – and even his fiercest opponents have learnt never to write him off.

Now if you believe the polls, which show the opposition block seats ahead, he may have to resort to another magic trick.

With one of Israel’s most consequential elections approaching next week, Netanyahu and former IDF chief Gadi Eisenkot are locked in an increasingly intense political contest. Yet, curiously, it is Eisenkot who has been far less visible on the campaign trail than his rivals at this closing stage.

Netanyahu and the other contenders Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Lieberman have been fighting relentlessly for every vote.

Yet Eisenkot has adopted a noticeably more subdued approach, much to the frustration of some of his supporters, who fear he is failing to capitalise on a crucial political opportunity.

The son of Moroccan immigrants and raised in a working-class family, Eisenkot represents a potential challenge to Likud’s traditionally loyal electorate.

But his appeal extends well beyond his background. Having lost his son Gal during the Gaza war, he brings to politics a deeply personal understanding of the sacrifices demanded of Israeli families.

We will learn whether his understated approach reflects a deliberate strategy or is a missed opportunity come polling day on October 27.

In a political arena dominated by larger-than-life personalities, Eisenkot appears to be betting that quiet authority can carry more weight.

But Netanyahu retains formidable political loyalties, particularly among voters who regard him as their longstanding champion against an establishment they have never entirely trusted.

The contest is further complicated by Israel’s fragmented parliamentary system, where winning the largest number of seats does not necessarily guarantee power.

In the end it will come down to ultimately who can assemble the 61-seat coalition required to govern and not who wins the most votes. Then there’s the question of quite how stable any new government will be. Remember, Israel had five elections between 2019 and 2022,

But, as has been repeatedly said, the particular historical importance of this election is how it may represent the demarcation line beyond which lies life and government after Bibi.

The significant obverse of that is the possibility that he survive as prime minister.

That scenario is a prospect that would horrify and dash the hopes of the opposition.

For them, what’s at stake is the necessity of repairing an Israel that has been damaged by years of cynical, unconstitutional politicking and high-level corruption. In their view, the work to undo the harm caused can’t start soon enough.

A source told the JC: “After Netanyahu the Israeli political landscape will be reshuffled entirely, hopefully Israeli society will begin to heal and move forward after years of failed populism.”

High on the list will be drawing a line under Netanyahu’s bitter battle with Israel’s Supreme Court, which has torn deep divisions throughout the country. His supporters accuse unelected judges of wielding too much power, overruling the decisions of politicians chosen by the people.

His opponents warn that Netanyahu’s attempts to rein in the courts have threatened the very foundations of Israeli democracy.

Then there is the explosive row over Charedim being exempt from the draft, an issue that has become one of Israel’s most bitter political battles. For decades, thousands of strictly Orthodox men have been allowed to study the Torah rather than serve in the army, while other young Israelis have been required to put their lives on hold, don uniforms and defend their country.

Yet after years of war, with exhausted reservists repeatedly called back to the front line and families mourning their dead, that arrangement has become increasingly difficult to defend and has caused bitter arguments in every part of the country.

But it is the lingering questions over October 7 and the demand for a credible investigation into the failings of that day that will have the highest priority for an incoming new government.

The terrorist mass atrocity remains a raw and painful scar for Israeli, one still scabbing over and yet to heal properly.

Families who have lost loved ones want accountability.

Yoram Yehudai lost his son Ron, murdered at Nova. The 24-year-old hid for hours inside a rubbish container, texting his family one final message: “It’ll be OK, love you.” Minutes later he was discovered and murdered by Hamas gunmen.

Yoram told the JC: “Our Ron hid inside a garbage container for more than four hours until around noon and the Israeli forces never came to rescue him. How has this horrific failure still not been investigated?

“Benjamin Netanyahu does not want an investigation. It’s not that he can’t investigate – he can, but he doesn’t want to. He doesn’t want any commission of inquiry, not even one that he would head himself, and certainly not a State Commission of Inquiry established in accordance with Israeli law.

“He has had enough time – three years – and he has done absolutely nothing to investigate what happened. He knows what his involvement and responsibility were in the October 7 massacre, both in the years leading up to it and on that terrible day itself.

“Of course, as a family, we want to know what happened. Our son Ron went to the festival to dance and celebrate, and he never came home.”

Netanyahu insists there must be an investigation, but rejects the idea of one whose members are appointed by the Supreme Court president, arguing that it would lack the trust of much of the Israeli public.

Instead, he wants a commission selected equally by the government and opposition, insisting that he has nothing to hide and would be the first to give evidence.

The families’ grief has been compounded by the painful suspicion that the full truth of what happened and who bears responsibility has yet to emerge.

The issue is one that the opposition are vocally championing.

Eisenkott has laid out the first three items in his in-tray, should he become prime minister: “Establish a state commission of inquiry to investigate exactly what happened on that terrible day, so that we can prevent such an event from happening again. We would investigate exactly what happened on October 7.”

“Second, I would introduce a law establishing equal obligations for everyone, requiring military or national civilian service for all citizens.

“Third, I would work to repeal the laws that undermine Israeli democracy.”

Naftali Bennett has a different looking top three, except for the first item.

A source in the former prime minister’s camp told the JC: “The three immediate priorities are a State Commission of inquiry into the October 7th massacre, a law to limit a prime minister to two terms in office and an end to all funding for the ultra Orthodox who don’t serve in the army and don’t teach core subjects in their schools to ensure that everyone will contribute their part to the army, the society and the workforce.“

Yet these are all strictly domestic matters, and – at least as far as the rest of the world is concerned – Netanyahu has been largely defined by his foreign policy.

For more than two decades, he has made confronting the Iranian threat a defining mission of his political career, relentlessly campaigning to isolate Tehran diplomatically and destroying its nuclear ambitions.

His supporters would argue that this alone secures him a significant place in history, deserving recognition not only from Israelis but also from a Western world that has often been reluctant to acknowledge his statecraft.

The campaign against Iran was cut short when Trump pulled the plug. The possibility remains that the US resume a hot war after the president has seen the back of his own electoral challenge in the mid-terms.

Whether he would want to with Netanyahu gone is open to question. Perhaps that is why Trump gave him a late endorsement on Sunday, describing Bibi as “a great warrior prime minister”.

Then there are the Abraham Accords, which opened the door to normalisation between Israel and several Arab states; even Netanyahu’s fiercest critics cannot deny their consequential value. They offered the prospect of a Middle East in which shared strategic interests might, at last, begin to outweigh decades of hostility.

Yet the reality is that these substantial achievements have been entirely overshadowed by the failures, the divisions and the consequences of decisions taken – or avoided – on his watch.

Here lies the profound contradiction at the heart of Netanyahu’s legacy: a leader who helped bolster Israel’s strategic position in the Middle East, yet whose name may also be inseparably linked to October 7, the gravest security catastrophe the state has suffered since it was founded.

Fairly or not, history can be brutally harsh in its verdicts. Next week, the people of Israel will offer their own judgment. Then we may discover what happens when the magician runs out of rabbits.