Neighboring Arab countries, in particular, seem to be in a state of anticipation for what might be the outcome of the Israeli general elections, which began on Tuesday, October 27, and they are asking themselves many questions about who will be the next ruler of Israel, and how they will deal with the political scene that these elections will result in, in light of direct geopolitical repercussions that will affect the stability of the region, which suffers from security fragility due to wars that have continued over the past years.
The state of anticipation comes from the neighboring Arab countries, despite what most analyzes indicate, that any ruler coming to Israel, even if he is from the center or opposition camp, will not bring about a radical change in the basic foreign policy directions. Changing the government may change some policies, but it does not necessarily mean a radical change in Israel’s vision of its regional environment.
Most polls monitor the fact that the general consensus within Israel is still centered around relying on military force, confronting Iranian influence, and rejecting the two-state solution, even though potential leaders from the opposition may show greater tactical flexibility in the areas of humanitarian cooperation and diplomatic coordination compared to the current government.
The anticipation regarding the next ruler of Israel does not appear to be limited to the Arab region, or more precisely the neighboring Arab countries, but rather extends to the entire region, as the Israeli orientation towards both Iran and Turkey also appears to be an important factor in the anticipation of the results of those elections, even if Iran receives the greatest amount of attention, at a time when the Turkish file has not made the direct headlines of the electoral campaigns, compared to the Iranian file.
The Palestinian issue
The political analyzes accompanying the Israeli elections indicate that the Israeli dealing with the Palestinian issue will remain governed by the security perspective and the prevailing right-wing doctrine, with varying expectations between continuing the current approach, or moving to a pragmatic, tactical approach to ease international pressures.
The discrepancy does not appear to be large, with regard to the nature of dealing with the Palestinian issue, if either Netanyahu and his right-wing allies win, or the arrival of an alternative government, as estimates indicate that if Netanyahu remains, the hardening towards the establishment of a Palestinian state will continue, as will the policies of expanding settlements and strengthening security control over the Palestinian territories.
As for the arrival of an alternative government, expectations indicate the possibility of imposing greater restrictions on settler violence, and seeking to improve relations with the United States and Europe. However, all analyzes indicate that the disagreement between Netanyahu and his competitor, Gadi Eisenkot, does not necessarily mean acceptance of the establishment of a Palestinian state. They both reject it, according to what Reuters reported about their positions.
Immediate neighboring countries
In an indication of the state of anticipation in Israel's neighboring Arab countries, several reports said that Arab capitals have already begun opening channels of communication and exploring positions with prominent Israeli opposition leaders, such as Gadi Eisenkot, Naftali Bennett, and Yair Lapid, in preparation for dealing with any new political formation, in anticipation of Benjamin Netanyahu's exit from the scene.
Both Egypt and Jordan are fundamentally afraid of the continuation of the policies of the ruling Israeli right, which threaten to displace Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which threatens to create a cross-border refugee crisis that directly affects their national security, as well as undermining any hope of establishing a Palestinian state.
With regard to both Lebanon and Syria, most political analyzes agree that what will result from the Israeli elections will not affect the essence of security objectives, but rather may be limited to management methods and diplomatic approaches, as there appears to be a broad security consensus, within Israeli society and the political system, whether in Benjamin Netanyahu’s camp, or the opposition led by Gadi Eisenkot, that arose and deepened in the wake of the post-October 7, 2023 wars. The new security doctrine is based on imposing “security zones” within borders. Neighbors, and the freedom to intervene militarily, to prevent any future threat.
Normalization scenarios
The results of the Israeli elections, according to many analyses, may affect the opportunities for expanding Israeli-Arab relations, especially with Saudi Arabia, and the future of regional security and economic cooperation.
But normalization does not depend on the desire of the Israeli government alone; There is also the American position, the security calculations of the Arab countries, and the Palestinian issue.
Any new Israeli government may face difficulty in achieving a diplomatic breakthrough with Saudi Arabia if it does not present an acceptable vision regarding Palestinian rights and the future of the Palestinian state. Analyzes related to normalization efforts indicate that this issue is still one of the most prominent obstacles to expanding regional agreements.
Iran
Dealing with Iran represents one of the issues in which change may be limited, even if the prime minister in Israel changes, as there is a broad trend within the security establishment, and sectors of the Israeli political class, that views Iran as a major strategic threat, and stresses the importance of military deterrence and preventing Israel’s opponents from enhancing their capabilities. Reuters indicates in many of its analyses, that these trends may continue even under an alternative government.
However, according to many reports, there is a margin in which any alternative Israeli government, if it comes to power, can move regarding its approaches towards Iran, as it may balance between continuing direct military strikes, or relying to a greater extent on coordination with Washington and applying diplomatic pressure.
