Beyond Netanyahu: Israel's Election Offers No Hope for Palestinians

As Israel approaches another parliamentary election on October 27, much of the international attention is focused on whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will survive politically. His opponents promise a different style of leadership, a change in governance and an end to the political turmoil that has engulfed Israel. Yet an important question remains largely absent from this debate: Will a change of government make any meaningful difference to the millions of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation and control?

The answer from B'Tselem, one of Israel's leading human rights organizations, is deeply pessimistic. Even Netanyahu's defeat, it argues, will not necessarily end the occupation, dismantle apartheid, halt settlement expansion, or bring relief to Palestinians. The problem is not confined to Netanyahu or his far-right coalition. It lies in a political system whose principal actors, including much of the opposition, remain committed to maintaining Israeli supremacy and control over Palestinian lives.

At a recent online briefing attended by this writer, B'Tselem Executive Director Yuli Novak and the organization's representative Yair Dvir presented an assessment that challenges a widely held international assumption: that removing Netanyahu could restore moderation to Israel and revive prospects for peace.

"We are not seeing any possibility of change that will come from within the system," Dvir said.

This conclusion carries significance far beyond Israel's domestic political contest. It suggests that Palestinians cannot afford to wait for Israeli voters to elect a more sympathetic government. Nor can the international community continue postponing action in anticipation of the next election, the next coalition or another diplomatic initiative.

The central question, therefore, is not simply who governs Israel, but whether the international community is prepared to compel any Israeli government to respect Palestinian rights.

One of the most revealing aspects of the Israeli election is that millions of people whose lives are controlled by the Israeli state have no say in choosing its government.

Novak asked participants in the briefing to look beyond electoral calculations and examine the political structure within which the election takes place.

Approximately 15 million people live between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea under varying degrees of Israeli control. Yet only about half enjoy the political rights necessary to influence the government exercising that control.

Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank cannot vote in Israeli parliamentary elections. Most Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem hold residency rather than Israeli citizenship and are similarly excluded from national voting.

The contrast is particularly stark in the West Bank. Jewish settlers living in settlements can vote in Israeli elections, while Palestinians living only a few hundred meters away cannot. Both populations are affected by Israeli government decisions, but only one can participate in making those decisions.

For B'Tselem, this is the essence of apartheid: a political system that grants one population rights and privileges while denying equal rights to another.

Israel's electoral democracy, therefore, operates within a larger framework of unequal political power. Changing the government through elections does not automatically change that framework.

This distinction is crucial. International observers frequently judge Israel's political direction by the composition of its parliament or the identity of its prime minister. But for Palestinians living under occupation, the decisive issue is whether military rule, settlement expansion, restrictions on movement and dispossession will end.

Uncomfortable Similarities

Netanyahu's far-right allies, including Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, openly advocate policies that threaten further Palestinian displacement, settlement expansion and annexation.

Their agenda is hardly concealed. It includes expanding Israeli control over the occupied West Bank and proposals for renewed Jewish settlement in Gaza.

But B'Tselem's briefing highlighted a less frequently examined reality: Netanyahu's principal opponents do not necessarily offer a fundamentally different policy toward Palestinians.

"They have different agendas in a way, but about the core issue they are actually agreeing," Dvir said.

Former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and former Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman represent different political constituencies, yet all have opposed Palestinian statehood or supported the continuation of substantial Israeli control over Palestinian territories.

Eisenkot's military background includes association with the Dahiya doctrine, which emphasizes overwhelming military force. Bennett emerged from the settlement movement and has supported annexation of Area C of the occupied West Bank. Lieberman has advocated hard-line military policies toward Gaza.

Some opposition politicians speak of restraining violent settlers, removing unauthorized outposts or restoring law enforcement. Such measures might reduce particular abuses, but they do not amount to a commitment to end the occupation.

There is a fundamental difference between regulating settlement activity and ending the settlement enterprise itself. Similarly, prosecuting individual settlers for violence is not the same as dismantling the political and military system that enables the displacement of Palestinian communities.

Novak warned against the belief that Netanyahu's removal would reverse policies established long before his present government.

"Settlement, ethnic cleansing, dehumanization, military control, apartheid, these are all things that were there way, way before," she said.

This is perhaps the most important distinction for the international community to understand. A future Israeli government may employ more restrained language, improve relations with Western capitals and avoid the provocative rhetoric of the present far-right leadership. Yet Palestinians could remain subject to the same military checkpoints, land confiscations, settlement expansion and political exclusion.

The occupation could become diplomatically more acceptable without becoming any less oppressive.

Palestine Remain Invisible

The briefing also exposed another troubling feature of Israeli politics: the suffering of Palestinians is largely absent from the election campaign.

Dvir noted that three years of devastation in Gaza, the destruction of cities, the displacement of almost the entire population and continuing killings have generated little meaningful discussion among the principal contenders.

"There is no any discussion about Palestinian rights, about accountability for Israeli crimes and about reconstruction in Gaza," he said.

According to figures presented at the briefing, more than 1,500 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since last year's ceasefire. In the occupied West Bank, B'Tselem cited more than 1,100 Palestinian deaths over three years, alongside the displacement of dozens of communities and more than 30,000 people driven from their homes during military operations in refugee camps.

The recent olive harvest has brought further violence. Citing figures from Yesh Din, another Israeli rights organization, Dvir referred to more than 500 attacks affecting approximately 180 Palestinian villages.

These figures are not merely statistics. They represent the continuing destruction of the social, economic and territorial foundations of Palestinian life.

B'Tselem's recent report, The Elimination Project, documents how military operations, settlement expansion, land seizures, movement restrictions and settler violence combine to make Palestinian existence increasingly precarious in the West Bank.

Yet Israeli election debates are dominated by questions of political leadership, security, military strategy and domestic governance. The rights of Palestinians appear largely irrelevant to the contest.

Novak offered an explanation rooted in the psychology of apartheid. A society can experience democratic freedoms for its privileged population while remaining indifferent to the denial of those freedoms to another population under its control.

"That's exactly what apartheid does," she said.

Decades of separation and dehumanization, she argued, have made it possible for much of Israeli society to view military domination over Palestinians as normal.

The danger is that a new government could restore a more acceptable international image while leaving this normalization untouched.

Can Arab Citizens Influence Outcome?

Palestinian citizens of Israel, or Arab Israelis what they are called, constituting roughly one-fifth of the population, occupy a different position from Palestinians living under occupation. They possess voting rights and could influence the formation of the next government.

But their political participation faces another barrier: the unwillingness of leading Jewish political parties to accept Arab parties as legitimate coalition partners.

Responding to a question from this writer during the briefing, Dvir acknowledged that Palestinian votes could be decisive.

"Palestinian citizens of Israel have the right to vote and they can influence the election result and the formation of the government," he said.

"But first, we must remember that they operate within a system of apartheid and institutionalized discrimination."

This contradiction is particularly relevant in a close election. Opposition parties may require parliamentary support from Palestinian-led parties to defeat Netanyahu, yet many remain unwilling to enter formal governing arrangements with them.

It demonstrates that even within Israel's electoral system, Palestinian political participation is accepted only within restricted boundaries.

The refusal to cooperate with Arab parties, even at the risk of allowing Netanyahu to remain in power, reveals how deeply the question of Jewish political dominance shapes coalition calculations.

Why International Pressure is Indispensable

The most consequential argument emerging from the B'Tselem briefing concerns the responsibility of the international community.

For decades, foreign governments have repeatedly deferred meaningful action on Palestinian rights while waiting for Israeli political developments. There has always been another election approaching, another government to be formed, another peace initiative to explore or another diplomatic opportunity to preserve.

Meanwhile, settlements have expanded, occupation has become more entrenched and the prospects of Palestinian self-determination have diminished.

Dvir warned against repeating this pattern after the forthcoming election.

"We cannot give them more time," he said. "We need to see actions on the ground, we need to see the policies changing."

His warning applies equally to Netanyahu and any successor. International governments should not interpret a change in leadership as sufficient evidence of a change in policy.

The world has already witnessed governments that speak the language of peace while permitting the expansion of settlements and consolidation of occupation.

The international community possesses considerable influence through military assistance, trade, diplomatic relations, international legal institutions and political recognition. But influence without consequences has done little to change Israeli conduct.

The International Court of Justice's July 2024 advisory opinion concluded that Israel's continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful and must end as rapidly as possible. That finding provides an important legal foundation for international action.

Meaningful pressure could include restrictions on military assistance used to sustain occupation, consequences for settlement expansion, enforcement of international legal obligations, and diplomatic measures tied to measurable improvements in Palestinian rights.

These are not substitutes for a political settlement. They are instruments through which the international community can help create conditions for one.

B'Tselem's argument is that diplomatic condemnation alone cannot dismantle a system sustained by material and political support.

"If not, we need to see the international community moving from talking and from condemnation into real actions on the ground," Dvir said.

The responsibility is particularly significant for governments that publicly endorse Palestinian self-determination while maintaining relationships that enable the continuation of Israeli policies.

They cannot indefinitely separate their declarations of principle from the practical consequences of their support.

Danger of More Acceptable Occupation

There is another risk in treating Netanyahu's defeat as a breakthrough for Palestinians. A more moderate Israeli government could reduce international scrutiny precisely because its language and diplomatic behavior would be less confrontational.

Foreign capitals might welcome renewed cooperation, improved relations and promises of restraint. Pressure for accountability could weaken, even if settlement construction, military operations and restrictions on Palestinian life continued.

This would allow the underlying system to survive under a more reassuring political appearance.

Novak warned that the problem predates the present government and cannot be resolved simply by replacing its leaders.

"We have no reason to think that a shift in government, that the changing government will change the fundamental direction that started way before this current government," she said.

That assessment does not mean differences between Israeli governments are entirely meaningless. Some administrations may pursue more aggressive policies, while others may restrain particular forms of violence. Such differences can matter to communities facing immediate threats.

But reducing abuses is not the same as ending the political system that produces them.

A government that prosecutes violent settlers while preserving settlements cannot claim to have ended dispossession. A government that improves conditions at checkpoints while maintaining military occupation has not granted freedom. And a government that promises reconstruction in Gaza without recognizing Palestinian political rights cannot offer a durable settlement.

The distinction between changing the management of occupation and ending occupation must remain central to international policy.

Beyond Ballot Box

Israel's October 27 election may prove decisive for Netanyahu's political career. It could reshape the country's governing coalition and alter its relationship with important international partners.

But Palestinians cannot measure their future merely by whether Netanyahu survives.

The fundamental questions are whether the next government will end occupation, halt settlement expansion, recognize Palestinian political equality and allow Palestinians to determine their own future.

B'Tselem's assessment is that no major political force currently offers a credible commitment to such a transformation.

Its warning deserves attention precisely because it comes from within Israeli society, from an organization that has documented the consequences of occupation for decades.

The international community must therefore abandon the comforting assumption that Israeli electoral change will eventually resolve the Palestinian question.

Waiting for a different Israeli prime minister is not a policy. Nor is repeatedly condemning settlement expansion while continuing to provide the means and diplomatic protection that sustain it.

The next government must be judged by what it does, not by who leads it or how moderately it speaks.

For Palestinians, freedom, equality and self-determination cannot remain contingent on the internal political calculations of the state that controls their lives.

Netanyahu may win or lose. Israel may acquire a new prime minister and a different coalition. But unless the international community is prepared to attach real consequences to the continuation of occupation and apartheid, the fundamental reality for Palestinians is unlikely to change.

The ballot box may decide who governs Israel. Only sustained international pressure, backed by enforceable action and accountability, offers a credible prospect of changing how Israel governs Palestinians.