Israel’s election has exposed Netanyahu’s weakening political mandate, deepened domestic divisions, and underscored the limitations of military force in achieving regional security, political stability, and lasting peace.
Netanyahu’s Electoral Setback and Israel’s Political Fragmentation
This election was not merely a political contest between two leaders. It is widely seen as a referendum on Netanyahu’s leadership, military conscription, foreign policy orientation, October 7 intelligence failures, and Israel’s democratic institutions. High voter turnout, especially among Arab citizens, reflects the willingness of diverse social segments to participate in shaping the state’s future direction. This predicament has emerged because Netanyahu’s traditional allies compromise Zionists whose stance on military operations, territorial expansion, and Palestinian territory is contrary to that of the broader voter base of the country.
Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir’s allies seek extensive Zionist control over Palestinian territories and the pursuit of the Greater Israel; on the other hand, ultra-Orthodox jews focus on public funding, military-service exemptions, and religious institutions. These conflicting priorities suggest these factions are not ideologically identical. The results of recent elections suggest that Netanyahu would have to face a difficult situation, as his allies would demand persistent military pressure across the Middle East, territorial expansion, and new limitations on Palestinians, reinforcing policies that have drawn international critique.
This would result in further deterioration in the plight of Gazans and Palestinians. International institutions and human-rights organizations have already accused Netanyahu of human-rights violations and war crimes in Gaza, allegations that he repeatedly rejected. The war crimes and humanitarian violations of the Netanyahu-led government have already extended to the West Bank, Syria, and Lebanon. The United States also provides diplomatic support to Israeli annexation of neighboring territories and its war crimes.
Iran, October 7, and the Question of Political Accountability
Netanyahu’s Iran policy is significantly controversial and notorious. He has consistently presented Iran as an existential threat to Israeli sovereignty, seeking extensive military readiness for offensive operations against Tehran. This policy threatens international energy supplies and regional stability, and has drawn the United States into a costly regional war.
Although Eisenkot also considers Tehran a major security threat for the Israeli ambitions and supports significant Israeli preparedness against Iran, he emphasizes on national integrity, institutional accountability, reestablishing international alliances, and a coordinated security policy. He proposed an independent state commission inquiry into the October 7 attack by Hamas to determine the root cause of the breach in Israeli defenses by identifying military, intelligence, and political failures.
Serious concerns have been raised about the security failures of October 7, 2023, particularly in light of prior warnings. Concerns have also emerged over the military and political decision-making that preceded the attack. These reservations require an independent inquiry that establishes responsibility for these failures through evidence. Such an inquiry would lead to individual accountability and expose the perpetrators behind this false-flag operation. However, such accountability or even the change of Israeli administration from Netanyahu to Eisenkot would not automatically translate into Palestinian sovereignty and security. It requires Palestinian political rights, self-determination, a settlement freeze, and security guarantees.
Coalition Uncertainty and the Limits of Military Power
The Arab parties have emerged as a considerable power in this election. Most of these parties are hostile to Israeli policies regarding Palestinian territory and citizens. They could play a critical role in preventing Netanyahu from returning to power and lead to an alternative government in Israel. However, some of Eisenkot’s allies oppose an alliance with Arab-led parties, creating a fundamental contradiction: they may collectively command sufficient parliamentary numbers to replace the Netanyahu government, but they lack the political consensus to translate this numerical strength into a governing majority.
In any case, the upcoming Israeli administration would face significant political challenges. A narrow parliamentary base could lead to political instability, allowing small factions to threaten budgets, legislation, and coalition survival. Thus, Israel could face protracted negotiations, failed mandates, and potentially new elections. The consequences of this election would extend beyond Israel and even to the United States, Europe, and the entire Middle East. It would also impact Israel’s diplomatic relations with its allies.
The recent election has exposed the limits of exclusive reliance on military power to address political issues. Israeli state needs to understand that it cannot resolve all its issues or achieve its ambitions through force. Compliance with humanitarian law, international rules and norms, and regional coexistence is mandatory for any state’s survival and stability. Israeli state needs to recognize the native Palestinians’ rights and must provide them with basic human rights. Future Israeli reliance on the use of force to suppress small factions, Arabs, and Palestinians would further destabilize the state.
Abbas Hashemite is a political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues. He is currently working as an independent researcher and journalist
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
