Dahiyeh Doctrine or Gaza Doctrine? Eisenkot or Netanyahu?

Or very nearly! The results of Israel’s parliamentary elections are in, and they are inconclusive for both candidates. This immediately prompted Aluf Benn, editor-in-chief of the daily newspaper Haaretz, to say that the October 7 war had not changed Israeli society and that, despite the upheavals of the past four years, voters, when the moment of truth came, had “clung” to their tribal loyalties, emotions and sense of identity rather than taking a critical look at their prime minister’s failures.

Yet despite everything, he remains indispensable, and it is fair to say that the electoral battle pitted him against all his opponents, whether Israelis of Jewish or Palestinian origin.

Indeed, Netanyahu is still at the helm, and probably will be for weeks to come. His popularity has certainly waned, but his election campaign nevertheless succeeded in cornering his rival Eisenkot, who cannot form a government without an alliance with the Arab parties.

But beyond all these considerations and every imaginable political maneuver, can we expect a radical change in Tel Aviv’s policies if Eisenkot replaces Netanyahu as prime minister?

According to Mohammad Saleh Sedghian (1), Iran would welcome the departure of Israel’s current prime minister as a matter of personal revenge. But who believes that, in practice, “Bibi’s” removal would loosen the stranglehold on the land of the mullahs or spare our southern Lebanon?

Two men, two styles of leadership (2)

The two rivals certainly differ in personality, career and their exercise of power. Benjamin Netanyahu is a career politician and an excellent communicator, “combining long-term caution with tactical boldness,” always weighing the political consequences of his initiatives and other decisions.

Moreover, he is determined to cling to power at any cost, since he will have to face his judges as soon as he steps down.

Gadi Eisenkot stands at the opposite end of the spectrum. He is a career military officer, trained in discipline, “valuing planning, the chain of command and clearly defined security objectives.” This former chief of staff of the Israeli military favors a flexible approach to warfare that adapts to operational results. Unlike his rival, he has no scandals hanging over him and need not fear the courts or their inexorable deadlines. Nor would he be inclined to “subordinate national decisions to staying in power.”

On the other hand, neither man accepts the idea of a Palestinian state between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. That being so, what positive impact could people in Nabatieh or Jabal al-Rihane hope for if the career soldier were to replace the wily politician?

Which of the two doctrines?

Rather than comparing the two “contenders” and drawing hasty conclusions, the more urgent question is what fate awaits us. Indeed, if Israel’s war machine were to swing into action, we would do well to know which doctrine it would employ: the Dahiya doctrine, named after Beirut’s southern suburbs, or the more extreme Gaza doctrine.

The first, devised in 2006 by several strategists, including Eisenkot himself, is based on deterrence and disproportionate force. As retaliation, it imposes a massive cost on the adversary and its surrounding community. The idea is to exact such an exorbitant toll on its civilian infrastructure and the population from which it draws support that it will eventually abandon military operations and stay quiet.

The Gaza doctrine is similar to the southern suburbs doctrine. However, its aim is less to deter the adversary than to bring about “population displacement.” It entails massive air strikes targeting residential areas to drive out and uproot their inhabitants. And who knows, perhaps permanently?

Between these two doctrines, we do not have much choice on the menu! So tell us, what is Hezbollah trying to achieve?

Six of one, half a dozen of the other

No more than Lula da Silva’s victory in Brazil, Netanyahu’s setback in the latest electoral test represents a victory for the axis of “resistance.”

The same Israeli threat will continue to hang over our country, just as it does over Iran. And if the mullahs’ party were to step even slightly out of line in the south, Lebanon would be devastated. As things stand, Eisenkot would be no more inclined than Netanyahu to give Hezbollah breathing room or grant the Revolutionary Guards a reprieve (3).

Despite this, the “influencers” of the “resistance” camp, those media charlatans, keep feeding their audiences illusions. So, for heaven’s sake, could they stop pinning their hopes on Israeli elections or American midterms?

1-Head of the Tehran-based Arab-Iranian Studies Center think tank

2-Alain Frachon, “Benjamin Netanyahu or Gadi Eisenkot: They Are Not the Same, and It Is Not Just a Matter of Style,” Le Monde, October 29

3-Steven Erlanger, “Israel’s election is unlikely to change its policies and global isolation,” The New York Times, October 30, 2026.