Arab world hopes for an Israel without Netanyahu, but doubts it will change - opinion

The Arab media are following Israel’s upcoming elections with considerable interest, recognizing that their outcome could have significant implications for Israel’s regional policies and its approach toward the Palestinians.

One striking feature of Arab media coverage is the in-depth familiarity many Arab commentators display with Israel’s political system, including the differences between and within its political parties – a level of understanding that is not always matched by Israeli coverage of politics in Arab countries.

The term “Arab media” encompasses a broad and diverse range of outlets, including satellite television networks, print and online newspapers, and social media platforms across numerous countries in the region and beyond. It is therefore difficult to present a comprehensive and reliable picture of the various voices and perspectives expressed within this vast media landscape.

But, at the risk of oversimplification, Arab discourse on the Israeli elections can be divided into two main trends.

The pessimistic view: a prominent perspective within this camp regards Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not as the problem itself but rather as a manifestation of deeper trends within Israeli society and politics, which have shifted sharply to the Right since October 7 and embraced a hardline security doctrine.

Accordingly, even if Yashar party leader Gadi Eisenkot becomes prime minister, the change would primarily be reflected in a different tone, improved relations with Washington, and greater diplomatic pragmatism, rather than any fundamental shift in policy toward the Palestinians. This perspective is particularly prominent in the coverage of Qatar’s Al Jazeera network, although it is also reflected in other Arab media outlets.

For example, Jordanian journalist Osama al-Sharif published an article on a Saudi website with a title that speaks for itself: “Netanyahu, Eisenkot, Lapid: Three Names, One Anti-Palestinian Policy.”

In his view, the elections offer no genuine alternative for Palestinians or the wider Arab world, since all the leading candidates share similar security-oriented positions and offer no new approach to resolving the Palestinian question.

Although Israel’s endless wars have failed to bury the Palestinian cause, he argued, there is little reason to expect any meaningful change in Israeli policy toward it. This assessment is shared by numerous Palestinian observers and journalists.

Supporters of this view emphasize the historical processes and sociological transformations that have reshaped Jewish Israeli society, both ideologically and politically, creating formidable obstacles to any significant change in Israeli policy following the elections.

From this perspective, the identity of the prime minister matters relatively little, since any government would be constrained by coalition politics and compelled to respond to an electorate that is predominantly right-wing.

Arab skepticism stems not only from assessments of the political balance of power within Israel but also from the deep scars left by the wars since October 7 – scars that will not necessarily disappear with a change of government.

The optimistic view: commentators representing this perspective believe that a new Israeli government could create fresh diplomatic opportunities for dialogue, potentially leading to an expansion of the Abraham Accords.

This approach can be found in several Gulf media outlets. Yet the optimism it expresses is cautious and conditional, and does not necessarily reflect the official positions of the governments concerned.

For example, Egyptian columnist Sobhi Shabana wrote in the Saudi newspaper Al Jazirah that Eisenkot’s election could open a window of opportunity for change. Unlike Netanyahu, who remains beholden to the far Right, Eisenkot views military force not as an end in itself but as a means of achieving political objectives.

In the same newspaper, columnist Ahmed Adam argued that a new Israeli government could make it easier for countries that have signed the Abraham Accords to expand their public relations with Israel, facilitate the resumption of high-level political dialogue between Israel and Egypt and Jordan, remove a major political and psychological obstacle to improving regional relations, and create conditions for renewed negotiations with Saudi Arabia – provided that the new government offers tangible progress on the Palestinian issue.

The tension between these two schools of thought is well illustrated by Omar Raddad, a Jordanian political and security analyst. On the one hand, he argued that various regional actors view the Israeli elections as an opportunity to reshape Israeli policy in ways that could open a new window for peace and normalization processes that have stalled because of the policies of the far Right.

On the other hand, he cautioned that the elections may merely replace political figures without altering the fundamental principles of Israeli policy, which remain rooted in security doctrines that have become more entrenched since October 7.

Beyond the question of whether a new government would change Israeli policy, Arab commentators are also examining who might bring such a government to power.

Role of Arab Israelis in the election

In this context, considerable attention has been devoted to the role of Arab citizens of Israel in the elections. Many observers suggest that a high voter turnout among Arab citizens could determine Netanyahu’s political fate, with particular attention focused on Mansour Abbas and his Ra’am party.

Yet alongside recognition of the Arab electorate’s potential political influence, there is considerable skepticism about the willingness of Jewish opposition parties to rely on Arab parties in forming the next government.

This creates a paradox: Arab citizens could play a decisive role in bringing about a change of government without necessarily becoming partners in shaping its policies.

Perhaps the most revealing finding emerging from Arab media discourse is the gap between hopes for a change of government in Israel and skepticism about whether such a change would produce a meaningful shift in Israeli policy.

For some commentators, a new government could open a window of opportunity for improving regional relations and perhaps even reviving the normalization process. Yet even the optimists do not anticipate a fundamental change in Israel’s approach toward the Palestinians.

In this sense, Arab discourse can largely be described as “pessoptimistic,” to borrow the term coined by Palestinian writer Emile Habibi: it combines hope for political change with pessimism about the prospects for strategic transformation. The Arab world, it seems, longs for an Israel without Netanyahu, but doubts that an Israel without Netanyahu would necessarily be a different Israel.

Prof. Elie Podeh teaches in the Department of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and is a board member of Mitvim – The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies.