TEHRAN — Israeli elections, scheduled for October 27, are about more than who becomes the next prime minister or whether Netanyahu stays in power.
For Palestinians, the more pressing question is whether the vote could shift Israeli policy on Palestinian statehood and rights. This includes the future of the Gaza Strip and the genocidal war that has devastated it, as well as the regime’s approach to the occupied West Bank and the Palestinian Authority.
The positions of the occupation regime’s main political candidates show that opposition to Palestinian statehood extends beyond Benjamin Netanyahu.
Palestinian statehood: limits of change
Netanyahu has made blocking Palestinian statehood an explicit policy goal. Naftali Bennett, who is running in an alliance with Yair Lapid, also opposes an independent Palestinian state and any territorial concessions to establish one.
Gadi Eisenkot, a leading challenger to Netanyahu, considers a Palestinian state unrealistic at this stage and has offered no concrete plan to establish one. While his positions on settlements and annexation differ somewhat, his openness to a path toward statehood does not imply support for an independent, sovereign Palestine.
Yair Golan is arguably the only opposition figure to claim that “responsible disengagement” from the Palestinians is a potential path toward some kind of statehood. Yet his plan would still sharply limit Palestinian sovereignty through demilitarization and continued Zionist control over strategic areas.
Avigdor Lieberman goes further, proposing to dismantle the Palestinian Authority, cancel the Oslo Accords, separate Gaza from the West Bank, impose Zionist sovereignty over Area C, and establish an Israeli-Jordanian arrangement to manage other parts of the West Bank.
The main divide is not whether Palestinians should have a sovereign state, which all of these candidates oppose, but how the territories should be governed. Rejecting annexation does not mean ending the occupation. Parties may oppose annexation for demographic and political reasons while still rejecting Palestinian statehood and maintaining Israeli control. This changes the management and nature of the occupation over Palestinians, not its reality.
The West Bank: Annexation, not rights
The parties’ differences are clearer in their positions on the West Bank and illegal settlements.
Lieberman proposes extending sovereignty over Area C, roughly 60 percent of the West Bank, while transferring responsibility for other areas to Jordan. His plan offers no path to Palestinian statehood.
Eisenkot has criticized the E1 settlement project, opposed certain forms of annexation, and condemned settler violence. But opposing specific measures does not mean supporting a withdrawal from settlements or committing to dismantle them.
Bennett rejects territorial concessions for a Palestinian state. Golan, meanwhile, proposes “responsible disengagement” and a halt to annexation, but under broad regime restrictions.
The Palestinian Authority
The dispute over the Palestinian Authority (PA) is another key aspect as it remains the only Palestinian body with a level of administrative power in the West Bank. The PA’s future will shape the relationship between Gaza and the West Bank, the prospects for unified Palestinian leadership, and the path to self-determination.
Israeli parties differ sharply on this issue. Lieberman calls for dismantling the PA and canceling the Oslo Accords. The Democrat party, by contrast, support strengthening the PA and maintaining security coordination, viewing it as a partner in governing West Bank areas and confronting Palestinian resistance forces.
But preserving the PA does not necessarily offer a path to self-determination. Dismantling it could lead to more direct regime control, while maintaining it without a political horizon would leave it administering Palestinian areas without sovereignty over land or borders.
The main parties largely frame the PA in terms of security and administration, rather than the Palestinians’ right to establish an independent political system that reflects their national aspirations.
Gaza: Disarmament without withdrawal
In Gaza, the parties broadly agree on preventing Hamas from returning to power, disarming it, and establishing new governing arrangements. But this consensus does not resolve Gaza’s future or establish whether the occupying regime is prepared to end its military presence and control. Nobody had managed to explain how Hamas will be disarmed considering that a genocidal war failed to achieve this.
Netanyahu and Bennett both condition withdrawal of the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF) on Hamas’s disarmament. Eisenkot also calls for ending Hamas rule and dismantling its military capabilities. Golan proposes civilian administration, disarmament, and reconstruction under an Arab and international framework, with continued Israeli control of borders and crossings. Lieberman calls for eliminating Hamas and transferring Gaza’s administration to an external body.
The main differences concern who will govern Gaza, the role of Arab and international actors, the terms of reconstruction, and the extent of the IOF withdrawal. Agreement on disarmament and new governing arrangements does not necessarily imply support for Palestinian statehood or a unified Gaza and West Bank.
If the IOF withdrawal remains conditional on open-ended security demands, those conditions could become a means of prolonging Israeli control rather than a path to ending it.
Palestinians: How to read the elections?
Palestinians should assess the elections against three key considerations.
First, the contest is not simply between individual parties but between political blocs. A bloc that secures 61 Knesset seats can form a government, whose policies will be shaped by coalition agreements and commitments among its members.
Second, the main differences between Netanyahu’s camp and its rivals have less to do with Palestinian national aspirations or Gaza’s future than with domestic issues, including the Israeli regime’s political direction, ultra-Orthodox military conscription, Zionism, and judicial reform.
Third, although the Palestinian issue remains a security concern for the regime, other priorities have gained prominence following the genocidal war and destruction in Gaza. For instance, developments and worsening conditions in West Bank refugee camps is one. Others include Iran, Lebanon, regional competition with Turkey, expanding the Abraham Accords, and relations with the West.
A key dividing line is Netanyahu’s handling of security. His opponents argue that he has failed to translate military gains into lasting security.
Palestinians should not pin their hopes on who becomes prime minister, but on their ability to rebuild a unified national project, restore political and geographic unity, and mobilize Arab and international support to confront occupation, annexation, and displacement. Only a coherent strategy grounded in their right to freedom and self-determination can turn divisions within Israel’s political system into leverage to challenge and end the occupation.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: tehrantimes.com
