Version imprimableCan we expect anything from these elections in terms of Palestinian rights?
Frankly, no. The Palestinian question had already been buried. Today, it’s a race to the bottom to see who can be the most against a Palestinian state. I’m not even talking about rights, freedom or resistance: simply about two states, as set out in the Oslo Accords.
A video sums it up: a presenter asks eight representatives from the main political lists – from both Netanyahu’s bloc and the opposition – whether they support a Palestinian state. All reply ‘no’: we will do everything to prevent it. Several accuse their opponents of supporting it in order to discredit them.
Today, it’s a race to see who can be the strongest against a Palestinian state.
They all share the same consensus on settlement activity, ‘Judaisation’ and Gaza. Only Yaïr Golan’s Democrats, formed from the merger of Meretz and the Labour Party, say that it might one day be worth considering, but that after 7 October, it would be handing them a gift. The unified list of the so-called Arab parties, comprising Palestinians from 1948, speaks of a Palestinian state. But within the Jewish Zionist camp, no one presents it as a condition for peace any longer. Even close allies on the centre or the Zionist left say that 7 October has ‘opened their eyes’: there is no question of granting this reward to the Palestinians.
What, then, distinguishes the two blocs?
The usual divisions within Israeli society, now exacerbated. What is new is the inquiry into 7 October. Netanyahu shifts the blame onto the army for what he considers the most violent pogrom since the Holocaust; the opposition holds him responsible. Gadi Eisenkot, his main rival, promises an independent inquiry.
The other issue, which is rallying support among the secular and liberal sections of society, is the conscription of the ultra-Orthodox. Netanyahu wants to maintain their exemption; his opponents want everyone to serve in the armed forces.
The common thread between the two is the army, with its hyper-militarist rhetoric: Eisenkot is a former Chief of the General Staff, and all parties highlight their military experience. The ultra-Orthodox, who do not serve, make a convenient scapegoat. You cannot maintain a settlement without a highly developed army.
The opposition longs for the days when the army functioned better, when ‘we were left to our own devices’ and when the world didn’t hate us. During the protests against judicial reform, a reservist pilot from the liberal elite said, in essence: to continue bombing children, we need absolute trust in our institutions, in the Supreme Court. Because — and I’ll add this myself — they protect Israel from international sanctions. Once the system is discredited, soldiers and commanders risk prosecution for war crimes abroad. They want to carry on as before, whilst saving face.
And what about the social and economic issues? The ‘rule of law’—with plenty of quotation marks?
They’re conspicuous by their absence. Everything revolves around Netanyahu and security. The Supreme Court, which had sparked mass protests, has taken a back seat. The opposition says: let’s get rid of Netanyahu, and we’ll see what happens afterwards. That does not constitute a political programme.
The anti-Netanyahu bloc has no other agenda regarding the Palestinians and differs little on many other issues
How does the election work?
A single round, using proportional representation. Where it turns into a ‘Game of Thrones’ scenario is that any votes below 3.25 per cent are discarded. Hence the alliances to clear the threshold, or the micro-parties that siphon off votes to remove them from the count, or withdraw after reaching an agreement. Polls suggest the blocs are virtually neck and neck. Without a new government, Netanyahu remains at the head of a caretaker government.
And what of the United Arab List?
It brings together Ta’al, Hadash – which grew out of the Communist Party – and Balad to clear the threshold. Some anti-Netanyahu lists would agree to govern with them, whilst others refuse: Liberman, a secular ultra-nationalist, will never associate with ‘terrorists’. This weakens the opposition.
Balad was disqualified following a motion tabled by Ben Gvir; the disqualification was lifted on condition that its chairman and lead candidate, Sami Abu Shehadeh, withdrew, which he did. The most left-wing party in the Zionist opposition bloc – that of Yair Golan, a former soldier who has called for Gaza to be starved – voted in favour of this motion.
So would it be a mistake to portray the anti-Netanyahu bloc as being to his left?
Exactly. It is ‘to his left’ only because it is anti-Netanyahu. It has no other policy regarding the Palestinians and differs little on many other issues. It is unclear what policy Eisenkot would pursue: some on his list might well be found among Smotrich’s, Ben Gvir’s or the Likud’s supporters; there are also religious Zionists. Even if they oust Netanyahu, the situation will not change.
For Palestinians, this government has been a disaster, but that will not end with a different government
Netanyahu remains neck and neck with Eisenkot. Backed by Trump, he highlights his so-called successes in Lebanon and Iran, where, according to him, the war is not over and where he alone can continue it.
For Palestinians from ’48, the West Bank and Gaza, this government has been a disaster: colonisation, annexation, violence, torture in prisons – everything has been taken up a notch. But this will not stop with a different government. It is unclear what alliances will emerge from the ballot box. We may see elements of his government in a new majority, or people sharing the same ideology.
And what of the peace camp? For a moment, we thought Standing Together would stand for election.
This election shows that what we in France imagined to be the peace camp — a vast illusion — is dead. Standing Together formed itself into a party. Its activists gained visibility during the genocide through their humanitarian actions, by offering Palestinians from ’48 a secure channel to send aid to Gaza, despite the repression, and by speaking out about crime within so-called Israeli Arab society, which nobody takes seriously. But it was something of a bubble, and they failed to reach the threshold required to stand for election. The United Arab List shut the door on them: their leaders come from a split within Hadash.
On the Zionist side, the Golan Democrats are projected to win six or seven seats: an extremely meagre haul for the alliance between the Labour Party, which has governed for decades, and Meretz.
And so much the better. Perhaps people will come to realise that there is no alternative to anti-Zionism – to the end of the State of Israel – if rights and justice are to be achieved in Palestine. This will not come about through a two-state solution, nor through negotiations with chiefs of staff, nor through a response from within, nor through elections. The solution will come from external pressure.
22 October 2026
Translated by International Viewpoint from l’Anticapitaliste.
