Al-Ittihad, UAE, September 26
The battles now unfolding among Israeli parties and political forces of every stripe reveal several important trends. Domestic issues are clearly taking precedence over foreign ones.
Israeli political forces are primarily concerned with defending Israel’s security and confronting the challenges and dangers facing the state, regardless of how priorities are ultimately ordered. Israel as a whole fears an unresolved conflict with Iran, remains deeply concerned about its continuing confrontation with Hamas, and faces growing calls to continue military operations.
The recent debate between IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir and Defense Minister Israel Katz over priorities illustrates this dynamic. Amid competing demands to deal with Hamas before turning elsewhere, Israel continues to place domestic considerations ahead of other priorities.
The country is tense and increasingly concerned that current conditions will persist, while money allocated to education and health is redirected toward military expenditure and full support for the Israeli army.
This has led Israelis to question the value of continued military action: Hamas remains in place, the danger persists, and a broader threat continues to hang over the entire country. Israel may even face the kind of civil conflict against which President Isaac Herzog has previously warned.
These challenges are pushing Israeli parties into rhetorical bidding wars, colorful political messaging and competing approaches, while party platforms themselves have become increasingly theoretical and unrealistic.
Israeli voters are no longer following party visions as much as scrutinizing individual personalities through the prism of their own perceptions.
Israel’s regional relationships are deeply intertwined with domestic politics, leaving voters uncertain about their choices and raising problems surrounding the weight given to opinion polls.
Interest in Middle Eastern security is shaped in part by Netanyahu’s claim that Israel has changed the Middle East and intends to continue doing so, beginning in Gaza, southern Lebanon and southern Syria.
Across the political spectrum, there is broad support for the proposition that the Middle East must change and that Israel should act on firm foundations to establish its ability to lead the region.
This outlook assumes Israel has moved beyond October 7 toward more expansionist policies in neighboring countries, while still confronting threats that virtually all the parties competing to cross the electoral threshold and enter the Knesset regard as real.
The same applies to both established and rising political forces. Military figures seeking as many Knesset seats as possible share significant ground with the principal forces in both large and small parties.
This raises the possibility that an “all-Israel government,” or national unity government, could become a solution if no side can achieve a decisive result.
Some opinion polls have meanwhile presented Gen. Gadi Eisenkot as Israel’s next prime minister, an apparent attempt to influence the mood and orientation of Israeli voters that cannot simply be accepted at face value.
Israeli voters remain torn between political leaders calling for a broad reassessment of Middle East policy and the realities on the ground.
The Iranian threat remains, the Houthis continue operating and threatening Israeli national security, and Hamas’s weapons remain deeply embedded in the Israeli public consciousness.
Judging from the current election contest, Israel needs to strengthen its relationships with countries in the region, including Egypt and Jordan, pursue broader ties in the Gulf, expand toward North Africa, and develop institutions for security and strategic partnership alongside economic cooperation.
Middle Eastern issues in this election are therefore governed by Israel’s present circumstances and by how it deals with its regional environment, with the defense of its security taking precedence over the vision of any individual political force, regardless of the role it might play in government.
Defining Israel’s future relationship with the Middle East will require both a reassessment and an evaluation of everything that has been done with the region as a whole.
Tarek Fahmy (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)