Electoral Chatter

The US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, caused a surprise during his visit to the West Bank town of Turmus Ayya, after its residents who hold American citizenship repeatedly appealed to him for help in putting an end to the vandalism, blockade, arson and looting of their property by settlers. He described the settlers as “criminal terrorists.”

This happened on September 5. The statement came from a Baptist pastor, a former governor of Arkansas, who prides himself on being a staunch Zionist and calls on the Israeli government to annex the territories of the West Bank, which he regards as the heart of the Jewish state, going beyond the official position of his country and his president, Donald Trump.

Ambassador Huckabee stopped there, condemning the foot soldiers who carried out the attacks without going any further. Yet he knows that his friends Ben-Gvir, Smotrich and Netanyahu stand behind these men whom he called criminal terrorists. He also knows that what happened in this town is not an isolated incident, but is taking place in most West Bank cities and towns as part of a plan led by the Netanyahu government.

The ambassador had previously called for and blessed this plan. Today, however, he believes it is his duty to protect the Israeli government from the international damage caused by the behavior of these extremist foot soldiers, at a murky and uncertain electoral moment when neither the results nor the fate of the three principal figures in this contest can be predicted.

Netanyahu, the Suicidal One

The current prime minister continues to lead the government and prepare for the elections with the clear conviction that he is the most capable person to lead Israel, particularly in wartime. He can see himself only as prime minister, not even as a minister in a government, according to some of his associates, who in turn feed this narcissistic tendency.

In foreign policy, Netanyahu, like his opponents, proceeds from a fundamental assumption: Israel must possess the power necessary to maintain superiority over the combined Arab armies.

The superiority now sought extends to regional powers such as Pakistan and Türkiye, insofar as they have entered into an alliance with Saudi Arabia. This partly explains the fierce attacks on Türkiye, since Netanyahu cannot make comparable statements about Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, with which he wishes to normalize relations before any other country.

Netanyahu therefore moved to conclude the military agreement with Greece and supply it with a “defense shield,” in order to alter the balance of power with Türkiye in the air, at sea and underwater. This is reflected in the agreement known as “Achilles’ Shield.” Israel and Greece signed a defense agreement worth approximately three billion euros on August 31, including the establishment of a multilayered air defense system.

The acceleration of the alliance with Greece may be compensation for his failure in his attempt to overthrow the Iranian regime, after convincing US President Trump that the collapse of the authorities in Tehran and the installation of a government responsive to the Indian-Emirati-Israeli alliance he had promoted were inevitable, although he failed to bring that alliance into being.

Netanyahu therefore continues to manage Israeli politics on the international and regional stages, as well as on the domestic stage, where he explores even the smallest possibility of winning a Knesset seat and every opportunity to make his opponents lose one, even if only a single seat.

For according to his theory of superiority, which he considers an acquired right of the Hebrew state in its surroundings, he also sees a personal and partisan right to regain supremacy and remain in power until his last breath.

His principal opponents have not constituted an effective political opposition. They have therefore been unable, and will remain unable, to inflict a clear defeat on him as long as he continues to hold the reins of power firmly and launch initiative after initiative.

But the most important initiative would be to launch another war against Iran. Netanyahu has said that “Israel is capable of overthrowing the Iranian regime once and for all,” adding that “all the security agencies are working to achieve this goal.” Yedioth Ahronoth, September 4.

What troubles Netanyahu ahead of the elections is Iran’s military and security posture, which, for the time being, does not appear to favor launching a war against Israel, preferring instead to issue repeated threats.

Meanwhile, Defense Minister Israel Katz supports his prime minister in domestic politics. During a visit to the Gaza Strip, he stated that “the plan to displace the population of the Gaza Strip remains on the table,” that “there is no real solution for Gaza without emigration,” that “the emigration directorate is ready to implement it by sea and air,” and that President Trump “has not canceled it, but frozen it.” Press reports, September 3.

Against this background of political orientations and military and security operations, Netanyahu is waging his suicidal electoral battle, whatever the cost.

Lapid, the Lazy One

If we regard the American ambassador as the star witness to settler terrorism in the West Bank, we can say that he has moved far ahead of opposition leader Yair Lapid, who has remained committed to a phrase he has repeated since the October 7 attack, his attitude amounting to: silence, “we are shooting.”

Lapid’s friends and opponents agree that he has served Netanyahu better than anyone else in the opposition camp. The Knesset has lost the customary political clamor between the two camps, and their differences have become difficult to discern in recent years.

Then came the recent departure of six Knesset members from his party, Yesh Atid (“There Is a Future”).

Benjamin Netanyahu therefore cannot regard his rival at the head of the opposition camp as a serious threat in the electoral contest. As long as Netanyahu and his government are firing in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon and the Golan, Lapid will remain silent until a ceasefire.

That will not happen before the elections, during them or afterward, because Netanyahu constantly bets on seizing an opportunity for confrontation offered by his extremist enemies, whether in Palestine, Lebanon or Iran.

He also bets on the US-Iranian military confrontation continuing for months to come, with no way of predicting how it will end.

Eisenkot, the Ambitious One

In a poll conducted by the Lazar Institute for Maariv, whose results were published on September 4, the Yashar party led by Eisenkot won 23 seats, compared with 20 for Likud.

Netanyahu’s bloc reached 51 seats, against 57 for the Zionist opposition parties and 12 for the Arab parties. Neither camp was therefore able to reach the required majority of 61 seats.

In a new poll published on September 6 by Israel’s public broadcaster, Netanyahu’s bloc rose to 52 seats, while Eisenkot’s bloc obtained 51.

In this configuration, the current opposition leader, Lapid, can only be viewed within the framework of Eisenkot’s leadership. Eisenkot aspires to emulate great Israeli leaders such as Yitzhak Rabin, comes from the military establishment, and has a family that made sacrifices in the war following the October 7 attack.

Some hope Eisenkot will win in order to rid themselves of Netanyahu. Others hope he will restore the image of a democratic Israel and the standing of transparent and upright political, military and security leadership, demonstrating that a return to the Zionist project’s original founding version is still possible.

Yet the inability of either competing bloc to secure a decisive victory, together with the marginalization of the Arab parties’ bloc, leaves the outlook in a gray zone, while black smoke and fire continue to fuel extremism and draw moderates into its camp.

What matters most, however, is to clarify the political positions of this potential leader and the nature of his vision for a solution, both domestically, with the Palestinians, and regionally, in relation to the ongoing open wars.

In this regard, Gadi Eisenkot stated in a lengthy interview with Israel Hayom on August 27 that “the two-state solution is a grave mistake, and anyone who thinks about it after October 7 is delusional.” He also said that “Arab-Palestinian terrorism against Israel is deep and entrenched.”

He wants to formulate a strategic national security plan that Netanyahu had rejected when Eisenkot proposed it. He also intends to restore the army’s central role in decision-making in the West Bank, where settlers are engaging in violence that damages Israel’s image.

Eisenkot may believe in his ability to build a new political experience from his national, security and military position, based on criticism of the religious extremism to which Netanyahu has given ample room.

But his aspiration to resemble Yitzhak Rabin has no justification, since Eisenkot has proposed no solutions to the Palestinian question or to peace with the Arab countries.

The foregoing electoral chatter points us toward outcomes that are known in advance if Netanyahu’s alliance wins. He is building on clear electoral premises to formulate even more extreme policies, particularly since the US midterm elections will give him an opportunity to escape American institutional pressure, whether the Democrats win or the Republicans retain their seats, because the final two years of Trump’s term weaken the usual mechanisms of pressure.

If Eisenkot wins, on the other hand, the coalition he leads, together with the Zionist and left-wing parties to his left that might wish to support him, will find no one to exert pressure on him. Those to his left, particularly what remains of the Zionist or left-wing peace camp, have become more cautious in their approach to the two-state solution.

The old Zionist left used to call on Israeli society to move toward that solution. Today, it asks the Palestinians to demonstrate their ability to wage the struggle for peace and renounce violence.

Indeed, voices within parts of this camp go so far as to justify the continuation of the occupation on the grounds that it is the guarantee necessary to eliminate terrorism first, and there are numerous examples of this.

Thus, the largest active bloc in the Israeli-Jewish center remains one that calls for crushing the Palestinian national movement and working to displace as many Palestinians as possible, should the necessary conditions arise.