Israeli Elections: A Façade of Change, Policy Remains Unaltered on Palestinian Issue

As Israel approaches its parliamentary election on October 27, a significant movement is underway, with Israelis rallying in Tel Aviv to demand an independent state commission of inquiry into the October 7, 2023 attacks. The election campaign has largely been framed around two opposing "blocs": one led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and another that opposes him. This division might suggest to external observers that distinct visions for the country are at stake, with the outcome dictating future policies. However, this perception, common in electoral races globally, does not hold true for Israel, particularly concerning its policies towards the Palestinians.

Foreign diplomats frequently inquire about the future of the "two-state solution" and discuss reconstruction plans for Gaza, often attributing the lack of progress to Netanyahu. The assumption is that his removal would usher in significant change. Yet, one might expect that three years of alleged genocide, pending war crimes indictments at the International Court of Justice, and numerous reports documenting Israeli actions would influence the Israeli electorate. It would be reasonable to assume that voters would consider their nation's actions towards Palestinians, the future implications, and even their own self-interest when casting their ballots. However, the reality appears to be different.

The vast majority of Israelis are expected to vote for candidates who, mirroring their own views, support the continued denial of freedom for Palestinians, the ongoing colonization of the West Bank, the destruction of Gaza, the continued alleged genocide of Palestinians, and the persistent bombing and land appropriation from neighboring sovereign nations. This stance is evident in the candidates' slogans and statements. Pro-Netanyahu factions have called for Gaza's complete destruction and have expressed desires to see the occupied West Bank transformed into a replica of Gaza, with some proclaiming that "there are no innocents among the Palestinians." Their campaign advertisements often depict the demolition of Palestinian homes, starving Palestinians, and explosions in civilian areas, with candidates promising even more severe actions. One prominent slogan is "Occupy. Expel. Settle."

The opposition's platform offers little divergence. Avigdor Liberman, a prominent rival of Netanyahu, has also stated that "there are no innocents in Gaza." He and his party have been known to obstruct aid, including food, from entering Gaza and have openly advocated for the occupation of Lebanon. Even those considered leftists within the opposition, such as Yair Golan, have criticized international recognition of Palestine and have voiced support for Israel's illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. Notably, not a single candidate from the opposition parties endorses the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Consequently, neither genocide nor the "two-state solution" will be central issues on the ballot. Israel's protracted conflicts, often termed "forever wars," will also not be the focus. Instead, the electoral contest will revolve around internal matters, such as the participation of the Haredim (ultra-Orthodox) in military service and the extent of punitive measures against Palestinians. In essence, the upcoming election may alter the faces in government but not the fundamental policies.

The article raises a critical question: what kind of society overwhelmingly supports politicians who openly advocate for war crimes? The answer lies in the normalization of such actions within Israel. Since its establishment on the ruins of Palestinian homes and through the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, Israeli society has largely evaded international consequences for its actions, including land theft, killings, imprisonment, collective punishment, and alleged genocide. The international community's response has, in effect, signaled to Israelis that they are "in their right" and that further violence against Palestinians is an acceptable means to achieve their objectives, namely, "Palestine without Palestinians."

Therefore, while foreign diplomats and their governments may view Netanyahu's removal as a solution, it fails to address the core issue: the deeply ingrained belief among Israelis of their superior rights and their perceived impunity in dealing with Palestinians. For too long, Israel has operated under the assumption that its actions carry no international repercussions. Genuine change, the article argues, cannot originate from within the country but must come from external pressure in the form of consequences. Measures such as wide-ranging sanctions that isolate Israel economically and politically could compel Israelis to acknowledge that they do not possess an exceptional right to commit atrocities without accountability.

Regardless of which "bloc" emerges victorious in the Israeli elections, the international community must abandon its policy of silence and accommodation. Failure to do so, the author suggests, may lead to the slogan "Occupy. Expel. Settle" becoming a reality fulfilled by both political factions.