Israel's Election Matters Only Selectively: Iran Policy Differs, but Core Conflict and Arab Exclusion Persist Regardless of Winner
Source: Fred Kaplan. "What’s really at stake in Israel’s election?." October 30, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
The author argues that who wins Israel's close election will change a few things, mainly whether Israel goes back to war with Iran, but not the big issues like Gaza or the occupation. The more important lesson is that Israel's Jewish parties would rather give up victory than share power with Arab parties, which exposes a double standard and will likely deepen tensions and isolate Israel.
Conclusion
Whether Netanyahu or Eisenkot ultimately wins matters little on the most consequential issues (Gaza, the occupation, Israeli-Palestinian prospects); it matters somewhat on Iran and marginally on settler violence. The election's most important revelation is that Israeli Jewish politics, frozen in trauma, will deny Arab parties power even at the cost of victory, which will worsen tensions regardless of the final count.
Premises
- On the Gaza war, there is no meaningful difference between the Netanyahu and Eisenkot coalitions.
- Eisenkot opposes annexation and criticizes tolerance of settler violence, but he supports continued or even expanded occupation, which is a root cause of the violence, so a change of government would have only a small effect on West Bank tensions.
- Netanyahu wants to resume full-scale war on Iran for regime change, while Eisenkot rejects regime change and prefers economic pressure, so the outcome matters somewhat on Iran. However, any resumption depends largely on Trump's decisions after the US midterms, and Eisenkot would probably not oppose retaliation if Iran struck Israel.
- Trauma from Oct. 7, Israel's retaliation, and the failure of outside parties to impose a settlement has led most Israelis to see territorial concessions or a Palestinian state as suicidal.
- Arab parties won 19 seats, enough to make either bloc a majority, yet both Netanyahu and Eisenkot are unlikely to bring them into a coalition because of far-right partners (Netanyahu) or a pre-election pledge (Eisenkot).
- Rejecting Arab parties that have won power through peaceful democratic means exposes a double standard in Israeli democracy, which will isolate Israel from allies and may radicalize Israeli Arabs.
Assumptions
- Policy continuity on Gaza and the occupation across the two coalitions means the winner has little effect on outcomes.
- Public and political attitudes in Israel are driven by trauma and are unlikely to change in the near term.
- Refusing to include Arab parties is a principled stance rather than a temporary electoral tactic, and it will not be reversed after coalition bargaining.
- Perceived exclusion of Arab citizens will reduce their willingness to work within the political system and weaken allied support.
- Trump's decisions are the key determinant of any renewed Iran war, and Israeli leaders will defer to him.
- Eisenkot's pre-election positions are reliable indicators of his future behavior in office.