Elections in Israel: will the balance of power shift?

Little will change even if Netanyahu loses, says La Stampa:

“Over the past three years 268,000 citizens have left the country – exceeding the number of new arrivals. A symptom which, in itself, clearly illustrates the sense of insecurity. Everything else – the corruption, the conflicts of interest, the threats to democracy, the destruction of the Gaza Strip – all plays hardly any role in shaping the Israeli electorate's thinking when faced with the age-old question: survival and existence at any cost. ... Whether Netanyahu loses or not, this question will remain. And the answers that Eisenkot may provide will unfortunately not be very different.”

Gadi Eisenkot is a serious challenger to Netanyahu, but many of his plans are unclear, writes Berlingske:

“Nevertheless, we must hope that Israel gets a new government. Because this election is about something very fundamental: should Israel continue as a secular, democratic state, in keeping with the founding principles of Zionism? Or should religion be allowed to encroach further and further upon society, as Netanyahu – who faces corruption charges and whose Likud party is by no means religious – has allowed to happen for the sake of maintaining his grip on power?”

The Spectator is impressed by the large number of Israelis travelling to Israel specifically to vote:

“Much has been written about the thousands returning home to vote Netanyahu out of office. Yet thousands are also coming to keep him in office. What they vote for is less important than the act itself. People are crossing continents to cast a ballot paper into the ballot box. How many democracies inspire such a desire for political participation in citizens who live thousands of kilometres away? ... Israel's citizens know that the state belongs to them and that they are responsible for its direction. For Jews, this awareness has a historical significance that is easily lost amid the daily clamour of Israeli politics.”

The Aargauer Zeitung calls for a grand coalition – but without Netanyahu:

“Gadi Eisenkot, a former member of the war cabinet, seems to be in pole position to replace Netanyahu as prime minister. And paradoxically, it would be best if Eisenkot were to do this together with Netanyahu's Likud party. ... In such a case it's even conceivable that Netanyahu's own party could break with its leader, because only a Likud without Bibi could be considered as a potential coalition partner for Eisenkot. ... If it comes down to forming the opposition with Netanyahu or joining the government without him, many a party member may well turn against their leader.”

Many of Netanyahu's opponents share his worldview, political scientist Sergei Medvedev explains on Facebook:

“The opposition alliance led by Gadi Eisenkot has a slight lead in the polls. ... Nevertheless, the election is taking place on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's terms. The key leaders of the opposition bloc have adopted Netanyahu's worldview on a number of key issues and have even shifted further to the right than he has. ... The majority of Israeli Jews now see the world as Netanyahu has long viewed it. This is Netanyahu's great victory. But it is matched by his great defeat: much of the world now sees Israel as the residents of the Gaza Strip do.”

To move forward, Israel must first come to terms with the Hamas attack of 7 October 2023, La Libre Belgique argues:

“It is precisely in view of these painful wounds that Israeli voters will have to make their choice on Tuesday. Not in the hope of healing this or that wound by any means necessary, but in order to set their country on the path to genuine recovery. ... Three years on, Netanyahu is still refusing to allow a state commission to be set up to clarify political responsibility for the events of 7 October. ... Yet every Israeli has the right to know what led to that fateful day in October. No society can look calmly toward the future if it turns a blind eye to its past.”

According to military expert Alexandru Grumaz writing in Adevărul, Monday's surprise visit by US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth was aimed at helping Netanyahu score points with his voters:

“The fact that the US secretary of defence came to hold talks with him at a military base – eight days before the election – reinforces the image of a prime minister who has direct access to the decision-makers in Washington. For voters, the message is easy to understand: a change of government would also mean replacing the very person who maintains those relationships just when the country is in a dangerous phase. This is a powerful election argument, even if the partnership between two states should not depend on who is leading them.”

TVNet explains why a change of government does not necessarily mean a change of course:

“Overall, it's clear that Netanyahu's departure would not automatically mean that Israel is prepared to end the wars or support the Palestinians' right to their own state. Many voters want a more responsible government but are still in favour of military operations. A victory for the opposition cannot therefore be interpreted as a clear demand for a change of course in relations with the Palestinians and other neighbours. Nevertheless, even small changes would be important for both sides.”

The Israelis must use their votes to stop Netanyahu, urges Le Temps:

“In recent years, Israel has undergone a fundamental transformation: it is a country governed by a prime minister who is under investigation by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, and which finds itself in a state of open war with multiple neighbours in the region. ... Tens of thousands of Israelis have already fled the country. ... Netanyahu's potential departure would certainly not be enough to change the country from the bottom up, however urgent that may be. But at the very least it could allow Israelis to halt their rapid descent into the abyss.”

The situation may well deteriorate futher, El Periódico de Catalunya fears:

“Israel's founding Father David Ben-Gurion is said to have remarked: 'The Land of Israel is our homeland, and we shall defend it with all our might.' ... This bellicose mindset still prevails today – the idea that the first defeat will drive the Israelis into the sea, and it is poisoning the campaign slogans – against a backdrop of an exhausted Palestinian society, an uncontrolled energy crisis and uncertainty hanging over the entire region, from Egypt to Iran. ... This already toxic atmosphere could deteriorate further if the election result prolongs the formation of a government amid a sea of irreconcilable parties. Things are liable to get worse.”

According to the Kronen Zeitung, the compulsory conscription of ultra-Orthodox Jews is making waves:

“With just under a week to go before the elections a campaign bombshell has exploded, stirring up emotions like hardly any other issue: the privileges enjoyed by the ultra-Orthodox (known as Haredim), particularly when it comes to compulsory military service. Israel is at war and there is a shortage of soldiers. Now the army has made an example of them. It intercepted a flight bringing young Haredim returning home from New York at Tel Aviv airport. Two coaches were waiting outside: the one on the right to take them to collect their uniforms, the one on the left to take them to a military prison. An outcry from the Haredim ensued. For years their parties – as sought-after coalition partners – have been extorting precious privileges. ... The Haredim have become a test of faith in the truest sense of the word.”