The overwhelming majority of Israelis stand firmly in the camp of the Zionist right, to the extent that it is difficult to find any trace of the left in the current election. This situation began taking shape years before the events of October 7. Netanyahu and his political movement’s time in power gave considerable momentum to the far right. After the Al-Aqsa Flood, the most influential factions within the right adopted a fascist character, evident in several forms over the past three years and reflected in the platforms of the elections scheduled for the coming days.
اضافة اعلان
Yet the fierce competition is between two right-wing figures: Netanyahu, whose positions and policies have been well known for more than a quarter of a century, and General Gadi Eisenkot, who served on Netanyahu’s war cabinet at the beginning of the assault on Gaza before resigning as the war expanded to multiple fronts.
Across Arab and Jordanian circles, the main point of interest in this election is Netanyahu’s fate and the overwhelming desire to see him defeated after the genocidal crimes he committed in Gaza and the wars he brought to the region. No one wants to say openly that they prefer Eisenkot to win, even though seeking Netanyahu’s defeat implicitly means wanting his rival to succeed.
Eisenkot undoubtedly belongs to the Israeli right, but he does not come from the same Likud school as Netanyahu. No one in Israel resembles Netanyahu. Some are even more extreme than he is, but no one matches his danger, commanding presence and influence. For Arabs and Palestinians, Netanyahu losing the election is equivalent to winning it.
Eisenkot would simply be a prime minister in Israel, not a leader like Netanyahu. He is a right-wing politician who abandoned support for a two-state solution after October 7. He opposes full Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank but supports continued settlement expansion under certain rules. He has not publicly stated his position on displacement, but he opposes settlement in Gaza, rejects placing Palestinians in the West Bank under Israeli rule and supports separation between the two sides.
On the war with Iran, he supports the war, as do all Israelis, but does not consider overthrowing the regime a realistic objective. Just days ago, he said he saw no justification for new US-Israeli strikes on Iran.
His election platform explicitly calls for restoring Israel’s relations with Jordan and Egypt. He has not made any anti-Jordanian statements like those associated with Netanyahu’s camp, which harbours hostility towards Jordan and includes it in its maps envisioning displacement and erasure.
Eisenkot will not bring peace to the Palestinians or the region, but he is unlikely to pursue escalation, annexation and an all-out war against countries in the region. His election platform does not propose changing the status quo at the Temple Mount and Al-Aqsa Mosque; he has ignored the issue entirely. The most that can be expected if Eisenkot wins is the continuation of the existing “bad” status quo, rather than its deterioration in a way that threatens Jordan’s stability and displaces Palestinians.
I believe President Donald Trump’s complete alignment with Netanyahu leaves Arab public opinion with little choice but to hope for his rival Eisenkot to win, as a response to the support that has provoked the feelings of millions of Arabs.
If a Jordanian politician had a ballot paper in front of them bearing the two names, I have no doubt that Eisenkot would be the preferred candidate. Who would dare think otherwise when Netanyahu is the other candidate?
