Israel Election: Same War Doctrine, New Ballot

Israel’s election next week may change its leader, but regional policymakers and analysts expect little change in its strategy toward Iran: military force first, with Palestinian statehood still distant. They say the choice between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his opponents concerns the degree of force, not the direction.

A ballot inside the security doctrine

Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud and its ultranationalist allies face an opposition led by former military chief Gadi Eisenkot’s Yashar party. Analysts said the divide centers on how aggressively to wage war, how much settlement expansion to pursue and reveal in the West Bank, and whether a leader chooses diplomacy. They expect the basic machinery to remain.

Aviv Bushinsky, a former adviser to Netanyahu, put the forecast bluntly: “If Netanyahu is elected, he'll do whatever he thinks he wants to do. Expansion of the settlements will continue. The wars against Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah will continue.” He added: “What you see now is what you'll see after the election, maybe even more aggressively. As long as Iran is in such a situation, it's a waste of time talking about Palestine.”

Netanyahu has said Israel must prioritize “prevention and offense over containment and defense,” including pre-emptive strikes, while making Israel a regional power and maximizing its independence in armaments. The election offers a contest over who directs that policy, not an evident break from its reliance on military force.

Palestinian analyst Ghassan Al-Khatib said Israeli parties were competing to project harder-line positions as public opinion shifted further right. “The substance of the policy remains the same: No to a Palestinian state and yes to further settlement expansion. On this, they are all in agreement,” he said. A government led by Netanyahu’s opponents might curb some settler violence or pursue settlement expansion less conspicuously, Al-Khatib said, but that would change style, not substance.

Iran as the organizing principle

Michael Young of the Carnegie Middle East Center said Israel’s security establishment and much of its political class share an outlook centered on confronting Iran, maintaining “forward defense” and preserving military deterrence. US President Donald Trump praised Netanyahu as a “great warrior prime minister,” reinforcing expectations that Netanyahu would seek to finish the campaign against Tehran if he stayed in power.

Netanyahu has described his aim as more than containing Iran. “Completing the task means toppling the terrorist regime in Iran, the head of the venomous octopus,” he said in a speech this week. Analysts questioned whether anything short of a US-Israeli ground invasion would make Tehran abandon what it regards as core security interests in an existential fight.

Iran may be betting it can outlast its opponents while maintaining pressure through regional allies. Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza have weakened, analysts said, but Iran-aligned groups have survived, and the conflict could strengthen Tehran’s resolve to pursue a nuclear deterrent. Young called the situation “a quagmire” and said: “The Iranians can outlast Trump.”

Some Gulf leaders see Netanyahu as the Israeli politician most likely to keep Iran under pressure while opposing policies they regard as expansionist. Abdulaziz Sager, chairman of the Gulf Research Center, said: “Netanyahu's policies in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon are damaging. As for Iran, a settlement is needed before the conflict escalates further. If Iran's role is not curbed, the region could be heading toward 50 years of Iranian hegemony.”

The proposed way out still runs through power

In a separate opinion article, Gershon Baskin, the Middle East director of the International Communities Organization and the co-head of the Alliance for Two States, argued that replacing Netanyahu alone wouldn’t end the conflict. He urged a new Israeli government to establish an independent state commission of inquiry into the failures of October 7, reverse damaging legislation and policies, restore democratic institutions’ independence and authority, and set out a strategy to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Baskin proposed a regional agreement involving American leadership and active participation by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Jordan and other regional partners. His plan would combine normalization and regional integration with security guarantees, economic cooperation, Gaza reconstruction and a process toward an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. He said Saudi-Israeli normalization couldn’t be separated from Palestinians’ right to self-determination.

Baskin also said Palestinians had gone approximately two decades without national elections after President Mahmoud Abbas’ recent decision to postpone them. He urged the next Israeli government to support presidential and parliamentary elections throughout the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza, and to say Israel wouldn’t obstruct them. Elections, he wrote, wouldn’t automatically produce leaders committed to peace, and Palestinian rights shouldn’t depend on choosing candidates acceptable to Israel.

For Gaza, Baskin proposed a transitional Palestinian technocratic administration, a professional Palestinian police force and an international stabilization presence, enabling reconstruction, Israeli military withdrawal and an end to Hamas’ armed control. He said settlement expansion and violence in the West Bank undermine a negotiated future. His closing formulation was direct: “Israel will never have security until Palestinians have freedom, and Palestinians will never have freedom until Israel has security.”