JERUSALEM, April 27 - Two of Israel’s most vocal opponents of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have announced a joint electoral ticket intended to unseat his coalition government. The new party, using the Hebrew name "BeYachad" which translates as "together," brings together right-wing figure Naftali Bennett and centrist Yair Lapid.
Although the alliance emphasizes domestic priorities - with military conscription for the ultra-Orthodox prominent among them - public remarks and policy signals from both leaders indicate they would largely maintain a familiar security line on regional conflicts. That suggests Israel’s external posture, already led by what critics describe as the most right-wing government in the country’s history, would see limited change under a Bennett-Lapid administration.
What the new party has said - and not said
BeYachad has not published a formal, comprehensive policy platform. Available indicators of the party’s likely direction come from recent public comments by its senior figures and from a source close to the new grouping who characterized Bennett and Lapid as both "hawkish" and "tough on Iran." That same source, speaking on condition of anonymity, also described them as pragmatic - leaders who "understand the need for diplomatic agreements and the work that happens after the military use of force to achieve strategic goals."
Iran
On Iran, both Bennett, 54, and Lapid, 62, have broadly supported Israel’s joint military actions with the United States, mirroring widespread public backing within Israel for the campaign. At the outset of Israel’s aerial bombardment in Iran, Lapid described the operation to Reuters as a "just war against evil." Both leaders have since criticized Netanyahu, 76, for what they consider shortcomings in achieving Israeli strategic aims in that campaign, notably the inability to topple Iran’s clerical leadership.
Neither Bennett nor Lapid has called for renewed fighting since the exchange of Israeli and U.S. strikes and Iranian missile fire was halted on April 8 by a ceasefire. Their stance, as represented by public statements and allied commentary, combines a readiness for strong military action with an acceptance of the role that diplomacy and follow-through play after force is applied.
Lebanon
Bennett and Lapid have both backed Israel’s military operations inside Lebanon while voicing concern about an April 17 ceasefire that did not stop ongoing clashes between the Israeli military and Iran-backed Hezbollah fighters. Lapid, shortly before Israeli forces entered southern Lebanon in March, said Israel must take whatever steps were necessary to protect its citizens.
After the April ceasefire with Hezbollah, Lapid said the permanent removal of the threat to northern Israel was the only true solution. Bennett criticized the ceasefire in a public Facebook post on April 17, warning that Hezbollah was rebuilding in southern Lebanon and amassing missile capability in preparation for future fighting. Those comments reflect a shared orientation toward preventing future threats to Israel’s northern communities.
Gaza
On Gaza, where Israeli strikes have continued despite an October ceasefire last year, both Bennett and Lapid have faulted Netanyahu for failing to fully dismantle Hamas following the October 7, 2023 attack. Lapid said in January that Netanyahu’s government had produced the "worst possible outcome" in Gaza, asserting that Hamas still commands tens of thousands of armed fighters. Under the ceasefire, Hamas retains control of a narrow coastal enclave.
Bennett has also directly blamed aspects of Netanyahu’s policy for strengthening Hamas. In a Facebook post this month he said that allowing some humanitarian aid into Gaza after an earlier period in 2025 when supplies were restricted had helped Hamas reassert control, writing that "this is with the help of hundreds of aid trucks that Netanyahu’s government brings them every day."
Netanyahu, for his part, has depicted Israel’s intensive military campaign that devastated much of Gaza and resulted in the deaths of more than 72,000 Palestinians as a success, and has indicated Israel could resume a large-scale operation if Hamas does not disarm under a U.S.-backed process that the militant group has rejected.
Palestinian statehood and the West Bank
Public opinion polls cited within the political debate show most Israelis oppose establishing an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem. As a result, a government led by Bennett and Lapid would be unlikely to enact a major reversal on this issue. Netanyahu opposes a Palestinian state, and his government has moved to accelerate settlement construction in the West Bank - a policy his ministers describe as aimed at precluding a future Palestinian independence.
Lapid, who occupies a centrist position and is not uniformly opposed to Palestinian sovereignty, previously said in 2022 that a two-state solution was the right course. Bennett, however, has publicly rejected such an approach, telling a U.S. broadcaster in 2024 that he believed giving land to the Palestinians would produce violence against Israelis and turn territories into "terror states."
On settler violence in the West Bank, Netanyahu, Bennett and Lapid have all condemned attacks on Palestinians. Nevertheless, those assaults have increased during Netanyahu’s tenure, prompting critics to say the government has allowed settlers greater latitude to burn villages and harm residents - an accusation Netanyahu’s office denies.
Conclusion
The Bennett-Lapid electoral alliance centers on domestic reform themes and a bid to replace Netanyahu’s coalition. But on core security questions that dominate Israeli politics - how to confront Iran, whether to press further against Hezbollah in Lebanon, how to finish the campaign against Hamas in Gaza, and whether to alter the long-standing approach to Palestinian statehood - the statements and positions advanced so far by the new party point to continuity rather than dramatic change.
With BeYachad yet to publish a formal manifesto, the specifics of how a Bennett-Lapid government would translate these positions into policy remain incomplete. For now, public remarks, critiques of Netanyahu’s tactics, and a self-described mix of hawkishness and pragmatism define their posture on the regional security challenges facing Israel.