Despite the sharp deterioration in American and international public opinion toward Israel in recent weeks, this shift has received less attention than expected in Israeli election campaigns and political debates. Every candidate criticizes Netanyahu over Israel’s growing isolation.
There are two main reasons for this, both linked to the fact that security is the top priority for most voters. First, Israelis tend to view the world through a rigid, binary lens: “You are either with us or against us.” As a result, many interpreted the rapid decline in international support following the October 7, 2023, attack as an expression of antisemitism rather than legitimate criticism of government policies. From their perspective, the Israeli military fought the war in Gaza with the greatest possible regard for humanitarian considerations, yet this was not enough to satisfy the international community, making it impossible to win back its support. Given these convictions, it is difficult to have a thorough public debate in Israel about shifts in American public opinion.
Second, politicians have exploited these attitudes to convince voters that their continued hold on power is essential to protecting Israel, creating a vicious cycle that serves their own interests. When Britain recently imposed sanctions on settlements in the West Bank, it inadvertently strengthened the position of pro-settlement politicians. Many Israelis do not believe the situation has reached the level of severity reflected in opinion polls.
They believe Israel lost Europe’s sympathy long ago and that regaining the support of the US Democratic Party may be impossible. Yet they remain convinced that President Trump and the Republicans are sympathetic to Israel. They have not yet grasped the depth of the shifts taking place in the United States, which transcend party divisions, or what these changes could mean for US-Iranian relations. It is naive to believe that the appointment of a new prime minister would change everything.
Although Netanyahu’s departure could help ease political tensions and tone down hostile rhetoric, Eisenkot shares his opposition to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is unlikely to withdraw Israeli forces from Gaza. Nevertheless, a new government could take positive steps immediately upon taking office. The easiest would be to crack down on extremist settler violence by allowing the authorities to resume administrative detention for Jews suspected of involvement in such violence in the West Bank. This measure could be implemented almost immediately. The current government has lowered expectations for conciliatory measures to such an extent that proposals previously rejected would now be considered significant concessions. One example is Netanyahu’s “economic peace” plan, proposed in 2009, which the Obama administration at the time ridiculed as wholly inadequate because it focused on economic issues rather than a two-state solution.
The possibility that Eisenkot might have to form a caretaker government if he wins could, however, have an upside for his supporters, as it would allow them to establish a commission of inquiry into the October 7, 2023, attack. But this move would immediately prompt a no-confidence vote against the new government and trigger another round of elections. Netanyahu would then undoubtedly tell voters that Eisenkot’s camp had broken its election promises by forming an alliance with Arab parties. This is a summary of the views of a prominent researcher at a respected Washington-based think tank.
As for the potential political implications of a change in government, the differences between Netanyahu’s coalition and the previous government led by Naftali Bennett were relatively limited on major issues, including the West Bank, Gaza and Iran’s nuclear program. However, the differences between the current government and a new government formed by the opposition could have broader repercussions in the coming years, particularly if the outcome of the 2028 US presidential election brings to power an administration more hostile to Israel. Such an administration could demand sweeping measures on the Palestinian issue and other matters, and might even threaten to impose sanctions on Israel if it failed to comply. For now, the Israeli opposition parties share one common goal: removing Netanyahu from power. But their political differences could emerge after his departure, dividing and weakening them.
The only way to ensure the formation of an Israeli government capable of functioning effectively and remaining in power for a full four-year term to implement its policies is to establish a national unity government. A minority government, by contrast, would soon find itself facing another election. If neither camp comes close to securing the majority needed to form a government, both will backtrack on their pledges not to cooperate with certain parties. If Eisenkot brings Arab parties into his government, it will damage the credibility of the centrist camp and ultimately work to Netanyahu’s advantage. If Netanyahu abandons the right-wing Ben-Gvir and figures like him, he could improve his chances of forming a stable, functional national unity government.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed by the writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Annahar
