Netanyahu’s Unseen Threat: A Former General Stakes His Claim

In the lead-up to Israel’s election on October 27, much attention has focused on Benjamin Netanyahu’s prospects for survival as prime minister. However, a Channel 12 poll that put Gadi Eisenkot’s new party ahead of Likud by a single seat suggests there is more at play than just Netanyahu’s re-election bid.

Eisenkot’s rise to prominence is not merely a personal story of a charismatic leader but also a symptom of deeper issues within Israeli society. The October 7 attacks by Hamas exposed the country’s deep-seated divisions and successive governments’ failure to address them. Eisenkot’s platform, which he claims would restore Israel’s security, unity, and democratic institutions, is a direct response to these challenges.

Eisenkot’s plan signals a shift in Israeli politics away from the traditional center-right consensus that has dominated since the 1970s. This consensus has been characterized by a commitment to maintaining Israel’s Jewish character and ensuring its security through force, but at the cost of democratic norms and human rights. Eisenkot’s proposal represents an attempt to reconcile these competing demands.

The fact that 43% of respondents in the Channel 12 poll see him as the most suitable candidate for prime minister is telling. It suggests a desire among Israeli voters, particularly those disillusioned with Netanyahu’s leadership, for change. This sentiment has been building since his early days as prime minister when he began to dismantle the peace process and engage in aggressive settlement expansion.

Eisenkot’s background as chief of staff between 2015 and 2019 is also significant. His involvement in developing the “Dahiya Doctrine” has raised eyebrows, but it’s a reminder that Israeli military strategy has long been characterized by disproportionate responses to perceived threats. This approach has led to criticism from human rights groups and international observers.

Eisenkot’s campaign has focused on presenting himself as an alternative to Netanyahu, but there is little indication of what a new government under his leadership would look like in practice. Given the complex web of alliances and competing interests within Israeli politics, this lack of clarity is not surprising.

As Israel approaches its election date, it’s essential to consider the broader implications of Eisenkot’s challenge. If he were to succeed Netanyahu, it would mark a significant shift in Israeli politics, potentially paving the way for more centrist or even left-wing coalitions. However, this also raises concerns about the long-term stability and security of Israel given its complex regional dynamics.

Ultimately, the outcome of the election will depend on how voters choose to balance their desire for change with the perceived risks associated with Eisenkot’s leadership. Netanyahu’s hold on power is far from secure, and it remains to be seen whether Eisenkot can capitalize on this momentum to become Israel’s next prime minister.

The path ahead is fraught with challenges, from addressing the long-standing issues of security and democracy to navigating the complex web of alliances within Israeli politics. The fate of Netanyahu’s government hangs precariously in the balance, and Eisenkot’s prospects for success are far from guaranteed.