US ‘Conditional Proposal’ to Assad and Netanyahu 2011: Abandon Iran in Exchange for Restoring Golan

Asharq Al-Awsat reveals details of last chapter in negotiations between Syria and Israel

President Bashar Assad meets with John Kerry when he was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Nov, 8, 2010. AP file photo
President Bashar Assad meets with John Kerry when he was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Nov, 8, 2010. AP file photo
TT

US ‘Conditional Proposal’ to Assad and Netanyahu 2011: Abandon Iran in Exchange for Restoring Golan

President Bashar Assad meets with John Kerry when he was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Nov, 8, 2010. AP file photo
President Bashar Assad meets with John Kerry when he was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Nov, 8, 2010. AP file photo

Syria and Israel, through American mediation, were on the verge of signing a peace agreement in February 2011, just before the “Arab Spring” protests broke out. The American mediator drafted an agreement that “went further than any previous document.” It included Damascus’ pledge to sever “military ties” with Iran and the Hezbollah party in Lebanon and “neutralizing” any Israeli threat, in exchange for its reclaiming of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, based on the June 4, 1967 border.

This was confirmed to Asharq Al-Awsat by officials who were involved in the negotiations, which were held by Syrian President Bashar Assad and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and mediated by American envoy Frederic Hof. The negotiations also included at least two meetings with the participation of late Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem, legal advisor Riad Daoudi and former US Ambassador to Damascus Robert Ford. Then US President Barack Obama and his Vice President Joe Biden, the current president, were aware of these secret negotiations, which ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was also heavily involved in. No official statement over these negotiations was made by Damascus, which has long expressed its commitment to restoring all Golan territories and maintaining the “strategic relationship with Iran”.

Enticing offer

Former US Secretary of State John Kerry shed light on the secret talks. In his book “Every Day Is Extra”, he revealed that Assad had sent Obama a proposal to establish peace with Israel. When informed of the proposal, Netanyahu was very surprised with it. Kerry revealed that when he served as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he visited Damascus in 2009 where he met with Assad to tackle a number of issues including a peace deal with Israel given that previous attempts by the governments of Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak and Netanyahu (1996-1999) ended in failure.

Kerry wrote: “Assad asked me what it would take to enter into serious peace negotiations [with Israel], in the hope of securing return of the Golan Heights, which Syria had lost to Israel in 1967. I told him that if he were serious, he should make a private proposal.”

“He asked what it would look like. I shared my thoughts. He instructed his top aide to draft a letter from Assad to President Obama,” he added. Assad, in his letter, had asked Obama to sponsor a fresh round of Syria-Israel peace talks, expressing his readiness “to take a number of steps in exchange for the return of the Golan from Israel”.

The next day, Kerry flew to Israel where he met with Netanyahu, who had returned to power. Netanyahu, recalled Kerry “was surprised that Assad was willing to go that far, significantly further than he’d been willing to go [previously].”

Kerry said that after meeting with Netanyahu, he returned to Washington with the “Assad offer”. The Obama administration tried to test the extent of the Syrian president’s seriousness by demanding “confidence-building measures” towards the US and Israel, including stopping some arms shipments to Hezbollah, which did not happen.

“I remember hearing that Assad was continuing with exactly the kind of behavior on Hezbollah that we told him needed to stop. It was disappointing but unsurprising,” wrote Kerry.

Iranian strikes

With the launch of peace negotiations in wake of the 1991 Madrid peace conference, overtures between Syria and Israel were made and peaked when Rabin held the so-called “four-legged table” negotiations. They focused on the withdrawal, peace relations, security arrangements and the timetable. Meetings included the Syrian and Israeli chiefs of staff, as well as secret and open negotiations that covered a commitment towards a “complete withdrawal” from the Golan and studying the possibility of “establishing normal peace relations”, security arrangements and opening embassies and border gates along the June 4, 1967 border.

After Rabin was assassinated in November 1995, Peres tried to “soar in the sky with a peace deal with Syria”, rushing to hold negotiations to reach a treaty. Indeed, in early 1996 bilateral negotiations were held but they collapsed after a series of suicide attacks in Tel Aviv, Ashkelon and Jerusalem.

At the time, the Israeli delegation informed its Syrian counterpart during talks in the US that “Iran is behind the attacks because it wants the negotiations to fail” and that “Syria must condemn the terrorist operations,” revealed an informed source. The negotiations ultimately collapsed and Peres launched Operation Grapes of Wrath in Lebanon, which marked the end of his time in government.

Netanyahu then came to power in 1996. Late Syrian President Hafez al-Assad “negotiated” with him through an American mediator, businessman Ronald Lauder, over a “very advanced” detailed agreement in 1998. Netanyahu was succeeded by Ehud Barak, who resumed the negotiations and held a meeting with former Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa. The talks were sponsored by former US President Bill Clinton. Barak offered an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan towards the June 4 border in exchange for peace and security arrangements. Intense work meetings were held in Shepherdstown near Washington, with attention focused on the thorny water file. The Israelis said that the issue was a “red line” and the Americans offered a “working paper” equivalent to a draft peace treaty.

In early 2000, Barak informed the Americans at the conclusion of another round of negotiations that he could not strike a peace deal because of the “complicated internal situation” that demanded he head back to Israel. He pledged to return to Shepherdstown, but never did.

The final shot at negotiations by a then ailing Hafez Assad was made in March 2000 when he met with Clinton in Geneva. Those talks also collapsed after 20 minutes due to a dispute over Syria’s access to the shores of Lake Tiberias and Clinton’s proposal of a map, which was previously rejected by Assad, of the June 4 border and Tiberias shore.

President Bashar Assad came to power in mid-2000. When Syria was confronted with international isolation following the assassination of Lebanese former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005, Damascus started to show some flexibility in its desire to hold negotiations with Tel Aviv. It sought to “end the isolation imposed by Washington by holding negotiations with Tel Aviv.” Turkey sponsored the talks, which were held in 2008. The discussions were advanced enough to begin considering the possibility of arranging direct telephone negotiations between Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Assad and then Israeli PM Ehud Olmert in late 2008. The efforts collapsed when Israel launched an operation against the Gaza Strip in December of that year.

The European and American isolation eventually ended. Robert Ford was then appointed ambassador to Damascus in 2010. Washington built on previous efforts, including those exerted by Ankara, and on the Obama administration’s desire to activate the peace path. To that end, it had appointed envoy George Mitchell to test the waters in the Syrian-Israeli negotiations, which remained secret and whom very few figures in each of the involved countries knew about.

On the American side, everyone from Obama, Biden, Clinton, national security advisor Tom Donilon, American Ambassador to Tel Aviv Dan Shapiro and Ford in Damascus knew of the talks. On the Syrian side, the officials who were informed of the talks, in varying degrees, included Assad, Muallem and Daoudi. The latter two had held rounds of talks with Hof and Ford. In Israel, Hof’s meetings were limited to Netanyahu at the official residence of the prime minister. The meetings were attended by then Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

Assad-Hof

The final meeting held as part of this mediation took place between Assad and Hof on February 28, 2011, at the height of the “Arab Spring” that had ousted regimes in Libya and Egypt and whose protests had started to break out in Damascus. Hof, who had worked on drafting the agreement, recalled that some proposals included Damascus’ abandoning of “military relations” with Tehran and Hezbollah in exchange for the Israeli withdrawal from the Golan towards the June 4 border.

Hof is a former US military commander and expert in the demarcation of borders of disputed areas. Back in the early 1990s, he was the first official to draw the June 4 border on the ground. Ford told Asharq Al-Awsat that upon his arrival in Damascus, Hof requested that the ambassador not attend his meeting with Assad. Ford agreed on condition that “that Hof sleep at the ambassador's residence”.

“I telephoned him on an open line so that Syrian intelligence could overhear our conversation. I said, ‘I agree on condition that you and your aide sleep at the ambassador’s residence, so that the Syrians know that we are a single team.’ And this is indeed what happened. Hof later informed me of the details of the meeting, I leave it to him to disclose” what took place during talks with Assad and with the negotiations as a whole.

According to Israeli reports in 2012, Hof’s documents revealed that the negotiations were based on Netanyahu’s readiness to return to the June 4 border, allowing Damascus complete control over the Golan, in exchange for a comprehensive peace deal that includes an Israeli “expectation” that Syria would sever ties with Iran.

Officials who were informed of the talks said Hof was “confident that peace was possible, whereby Assad would end his relations with Iran and Hezbollah and shift his alliances towards America and moderate Arab countries.”

One official told Asharq Al-Awsat: “I did not see the peace agreement draft. It was the beginning of negotiations, not the end.” Another official said: “It was not clear whether the two sides had agreed on a specific timetable or a resolution to the water issue in the Golan. Syria was saying that Israel had no claim over waters beyond the June 4 border. Israel, however, said that even if it could not deploy its military beyond that border, it wanted to maintain logistic presence that would allow it access to the water.”

The water dispute and shore of Tiberias Lake were one of the reasons of the collapse of the Assad-Clinton summit in 2000. Assad at the time had insisted that he wanted to “dip his feet” in the lake, which Barak rejected at the time. In fact, the Israelis paved a road around the shore, making it virtually impossible for the Syrians to access it without a clear agreement.

Some said that the Hof mediation was “conditional-hypothetical”, similar to what had taken place in the mid-1990s when then US Secretary of State Warren Christopher led negotiations by posing “hypothetical” questions to Hafez Assad. “What if Rabin pledged to withdraw fully from the Golan? Are you ready to forge peace (normalize) ties?” At the time, Rabin had placed a “deposit” with Christopher that included the readiness to pullout completely from the Golan if Assad agreed to demands that included peace relations and security arrangements.

One of the officials informed of the Hof mediation said that Netanyahu was “prepared to withdraw completely from the Golan if the Syrians agreed to a peace agreement that includes changing regional approaches and severing ties with Iran.”

A former American official, who is informed of the file, told Asharq Al-Awsat: “There can be no doubt on the seriousness. The negotiations were conditional. The Israelis wanted strategic change in the Syrian approach. Syria wanted to reclaim all territories until the June 4 border. A lot of progress had taken place between both sides.”

“America had no doubt over the seriousness of the negotiations. Assad and Netanyahu were serious in finding out how far the other would go,” he added. “Moreover, great progress, more than ever before, was achieved with Netanyahu over the issue of territories. Hof’s meeting with Assad on February 28 gave a clear signal of what Assad could offer.”

The Americans are keen on stressing that the written draft of the agreement was American. “This is important because envoy George Mitchel did not draft any paper between Netanyahu and [Palestinian] President Mahmoud Abbas (Abou Mazen).” The Americans are also keen to stress that no direct Syrian-Israeli meeting had taken place, but the negotiations had been held through Hof.

Confidence-building

The last attempt at negotiations gains importance on the eve of the tenth anniversary of the eruption of the Syrian protests, especially for Moscow, the main player in Syria that is leading a “confidence-building” mediation between Damascus and Tel Aviv. This meditation includes a prisoner swap, repatriating the remains of Israeli soldiers, sponsoring a return to working with the “disengagement agreement” in the Golan of 2018 and keeping Iran and its militias away from southern Syria.

Another area of significance is word that some Arab countries are interested in opening channels between Damascus and Israel or holding secret meetings to test the possibility of striking a peace agreement and keeping Iran away in exchange for financial “incentives” related to reconstructing Syria and resolving its economic problems.

Tel Aviv did not openly express interest in the political negotiations, especially after President Donald Trump announced in 2019 his support for “Israeli sovereignty” over the Golan and as it has continued to carry out raids against “Iranian positions” in Syria. Damascus, for its part, has not openly expressed interest in peace that does not include a “complete withdrawal” from the Golan and that may “jeopardize its strategic relations with Iran.”

Ford, meanwhile, told Asharq Al-Awsat: “It will be difficult for Assad to presently sign a peace deal with Israel unless he receives a lot in return, because he currently needs the support provided by Iran, its militias and Hezbollah. If they pull out from Syria, who will help the regime control the Syrian Badia, Homs, Sweida and parts of Daraa?”

“Will Damascus obtain western financial aid even if Assad were to sign a peace agreement and open an Israeli embassy in Damascus? It is difficult for the money to flow and for the sanctions to be removed after all the crimes that have taken place in Syria,” he remarked. “Some American sanctions may be removed, such as those related to the blacklisting of terrorist organizations, meddling in Lebanon or the arrival of Arab or European aid. However, the Caesar Act (which came into effect in mid-2020) cannot be simply undone.”

“Assad will not receive any sympathy in America even if a peace agreement is signed. There are limits to what can be offered in exchange to any peace deal,” he added.

Meanwhile, an Arab official, who is informed of Damascus’ position, said: “It is difficult for the regime to agree to sign a peace agreement without receiving a clear guarantee that it will reclaim the whole of the Golan. It is also difficult for the regime to completely disassociate itself from Iran.”

Between these two stances, a senior official, who is informed of the position in Syria, Israel, the region and the US, said: “Perhaps this was the final chapter in efforts to reach a peace agreement between Syria and Israel in the form we have been familiar with in past decades. At best, a new agreement or understanding may be reached, but it will be different than what we have read about and negotiated over for decades.”



Four Ways US Foreign Policy Could Change if Democrats Win in November

 24 October 2026, US, New York: Lower Manhattan residents cast their ballots at the Borough of Manhattan Community College polling site in Tribeca. (dpa)
24 October 2026, US, New York: Lower Manhattan residents cast their ballots at the Borough of Manhattan Community College polling site in Tribeca. (dpa)
TT

Four Ways US Foreign Policy Could Change if Democrats Win in November

 24 October 2026, US, New York: Lower Manhattan residents cast their ballots at the Borough of Manhattan Community College polling site in Tribeca. (dpa)
24 October 2026, US, New York: Lower Manhattan residents cast their ballots at the Borough of Manhattan Community College polling site in Tribeca. (dpa)

Nonpartisan analysts say Democrats stand a good ‌chance of winning the US House of Representatives and possibly the Senate in the November 3 midterm elections, which would give them a slice of power in Washington after two years of Republican control.

Democrats argue that Republicans have allowed President Donald Trump's administration to declare war and control spending, even though the US Constitution reserves those powers for lawmakers.

Here are some ways a Democratic Congress could hem in Trump's foreign policy.

CURB THE IRAN WAR

Trump did not secure approval from Congress before he launched the war with Iran on February 28, and Democrats have voted repeatedly to end the fighting unless he does so. One of these resolutions passed with support from a handful of Republicans, but Trump's administration ignored it.

With control of the House or ‌the Senate, Democrats ‌could cut defense spending to pressure Trump to obtain permission from Congress ‌to ⁠continue the war. ⁠They could also require administration officials to testify publicly about their plans.

FRESH SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE

Trump has largely halted direct US financial and military aid to Ukraine, despite broad support from Democratic and Republican lawmakers as it fights a Russian invasion.

Most recently, he has angered members of Congress, including many Republicans, by lifting sanctions on Russian diesel and waiving sanctions on Russian energy only weeks after signing them into law.

With a victory in both chambers in November, Democrats would be ⁠able to decide what gets voted on and when.

That could allow ‌them to approve new aid to Ukraine, which likely ‌would pass with the two-thirds majorities needed to overcome a Trump veto.

They could also target other ‌Trump activities. For example, Representative Gregory Meeks of New York, who could head the House ‌Foreign Affairs Committee if Democrats win control, has introduced bipartisan legislation to block Trump's plan to bring Russian diesel back into the global market.

END MILITARY AID TO ISRAEL

Support for Israel has plummeted among Democrats over its conduct in the Gaza war, which has killed tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians. The ‌ongoing violence in the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's close alliance with Republicans have also been factors.

Democrats could limit ⁠or end military ⁠aid to Israel, which amounted to $3.8 billion in the most recent fiscal year. That is more than was provided to any other country.

Nearly half of House Democrats voted this summer to cut off aid to Israel. Some of those who voted against that effort, such as Meeks, have backed limits on providing weapons like heavy bombs to Israel.

LIMIT MILITARY SPENDING AND RESTORE FOREIGN AID

Democrats are far more likely than Trump's Republicans to limit military spending. Trump asked for an unprecedented 67% increase in the military budget this year, to $1.5 trillion, but Democrats blocked it in the Senate, citing his refusal to consult Congress about the Iran war and his steep cuts to social programs.

Trump has also withheld or canceled billions of dollars in foreign aid approved by Congress. Many Democrats have been angered by the cuts and say they will try to restore funding.


Beirut’s $13 Chicken Sandwich Becomes Symbol of Lebanon Divide

A chef prepares a chicken taouk sandwich at Glow Paradise restaurant in Beirut, Lebanon, October 16, 2026. (Reuters)
A chef prepares a chicken taouk sandwich at Glow Paradise restaurant in Beirut, Lebanon, October 16, 2026. (Reuters)
TT

Beirut’s $13 Chicken Sandwich Becomes Symbol of Lebanon Divide

A chef prepares a chicken taouk sandwich at Glow Paradise restaurant in Beirut, Lebanon, October 16, 2026. (Reuters)
A chef prepares a chicken taouk sandwich at Glow Paradise restaurant in Beirut, Lebanon, October 16, 2026. (Reuters)

Seven years after Lebanon’s devastating financial meltdown, a debate over a chicken sandwich has exposed an increasingly stark divide between those who can still spend freely and those struggling to get by.

A trendy health restaurant wanted to offer its calorie-conscious customers a healthier take on the beloved Levantine wrap known as the shish taouk. So, The Glow Paradise launched the “Chic Taouk,” pricing it at around $13 -- nearly double what an un-chic chicken sandwich typically goes for in Beirut.

The pricey pun proved hard to swallow, with outraged critics accusing the restaurant of overcharging in a country where many households struggle to afford basic necessities.

Yet while the debate raged on social media, customers kept buying. The Glow Paradise sold more than ‌20,000 Chic ‌Taouk sandwiches in just 11 days, according to managing partner Hrag Jeghalian, who described ‌the ⁠online exchanges as "natural marketing".

The ⁠contrasting reactions touched a nerve in Lebanon, where years of financial turmoil, political dysfunction and conflict have reshaped the country's social landscape, hollowing out much of the middle class while leaving a smaller group of consumers able to sustain an affluent lifestyle.

DEBATE PULLS FOCUS AWAY FROM URGENT CRISES

Sami Nader, an economist at the Saint Joseph University of Beirut, said the throngs at The Glow Paradise belied another reality.

“So you see people in the restaurant, but what you don't see is that 22 restaurants closed last month,” Nader told Reuters.

Lebanon’s ⁠Instagram-active community was split between those accusing the restaurant of theft and others ‌saying the sandwich was intended for those who could afford ‌it.

Some questioned whether the dispute itself reflected misplaced priorities in a country grappling with urgent crises, from Israel’s occupation of ‌large swaths of the country’s south to the endemic electricity and water crises.

Lebanon’s 2019 financial collapse ‌was prompted by decades of corruption and profligate spending by the ruling elite, and several rounds of conflict since then have worsened the country’s economic outlook.

GDP has declined by nearly 40% since 2019 and inflation is expected to rise to 17.5% due to rising global energy and shipping prices eating away at people’s purchasing power, according to the ‌World Bank. The figure is more than quadruple the global headline inflation rate flagged by the International Monetary Fund in July.

Four in five households in ⁠Lebanon struggle to afford ⁠basic necessities, the UN children’s agency said in September.

'PEOPLE CAN'T KEEP UP'

The country’s middle class has “disappeared,” Nader said, dismantled by a series of crises including the collapse of the financial system in 2019, the 2020 Beirut Port explosion and two wars in under two years.

Monthly bills from private generator operators, which provide electricity to many homes and businesses during outages on Lebanon's failing national grid, jumped by nearly 20% in August 2026 alone, bringing rates nearly 60% higher than they were in February of this year, according to the kilowatt-hour prices set by Lebanon’s energy ministry.

For many, that means paying for 24/7 electricity now costs several hundred dollars a month, in a country where the minimum wage is set at $400.

“Everything has become expensive, and people can’t keep up,” said Fouad Fakhreddine, a 53-year-old restaurant worker from nearby Hamra. “We are now getting paid, then getting in debt over that just to get by.”

The years of economic instability, he said, have produced “a class that is living, and a class that is not dead and waiting to die from the unbearable situation it is in.”


Netanyahu’s Main Opponents in Israel’s Election

24 October 2026, Israel, Tel Aviv: Israel's Yashar party leader and former military chief Gadi Eisenkot arrives to attend a rally demanding the establishment of an independent state commission of inquiry into the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks and the events leading up to them, ahead of Israel's parliamentary election on October 27. (dpa)
24 October 2026, Israel, Tel Aviv: Israel's Yashar party leader and former military chief Gadi Eisenkot arrives to attend a rally demanding the establishment of an independent state commission of inquiry into the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks and the events leading up to them, ahead of Israel's parliamentary election on October 27. (dpa)
TT

Netanyahu’s Main Opponents in Israel’s Election

24 October 2026, Israel, Tel Aviv: Israel's Yashar party leader and former military chief Gadi Eisenkot arrives to attend a rally demanding the establishment of an independent state commission of inquiry into the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks and the events leading up to them, ahead of Israel's parliamentary election on October 27. (dpa)
24 October 2026, Israel, Tel Aviv: Israel's Yashar party leader and former military chief Gadi Eisenkot arrives to attend a rally demanding the establishment of an independent state commission of inquiry into the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks and the events leading up to them, ahead of Israel's parliamentary election on October 27. (dpa)

Israel will hold a general election on October 27, with veteran Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu locked in a tight race to stay in power.

Here are his main rivals:

- Gadi Eisenkot: The general -

The son of Moroccan immigrants, ex-army chief Gadi Eisenkot, 66, has emerged as Netanyahu's main rival, with polls putting the two neck and neck in the final days before the vote.

While he lacks his opponent's political experience, he enjoys public sympathy following the death in combat of his son Gal and two of his nephews during the Gaza war.

Seen as belonging to the center-right, Eisenkot has expressed some public positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that maintain the current government's tough line -- for instance, vowing to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state and to end Hamas's rule in Gaza within 18 months if elected.

He has also expressed support for Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, but has promised to crack down on settlers who have attacked Palestinians with impunity under Netanyahu's staunchly pro-settlement government.

Eisenkot resigned from Netanyahu's war cabinet in 2024 and has become a scathing critic of the premier's leadership.

He founded his own party Yashar, meaning "Straight", in 2025. He would be the first prime minister of Middle Eastern or North African descent.

Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett attends an event for the Beyahad party, ahead of Israel’s national election, in Haifa, Israel, October 21, 2026. (Reuters)

- Naftali Bennett: The right-wing alternative -

Former prime minister Naftali Bennett, 54, leads the center-right Beyahad party, which is polling in third place.

The former tech entrepreneur and son of American immigrants established himself as a leading figure in the nationalist right and settler movement, but has since presented himself as a secular centrist.

Bennett caused a stir in 2021 by forming a diverse coalition government spanning the Israeli political spectrum, with the unprecedented support of an Arab party.

It brought an end to Netanyahu's 12 uninterrupted years in power, but Bennett's government only lasted a year.

Israeli commentators believe he can attract right-wing voters who are disappointed with Netanyahu but do not want to move leftward.

Despite his fierce criticism of him, Bennett has voiced openness to including Netanyahu in an opposition-led coalition government.

Member of the Beyachad political alliance, leader of the opposition Yair Lapid (C) reacts during an anti-government rally in Tel Aviv, Israel, 24 October 2026. Israel will hold its national legislative election to choose the 120 members of the 26th Knesset on 27 October 2026. (EPA)

- Yair Lapid: The former TV journalist -

Once a star television journalist, Yair Lapid, 62, swiftly established himself as one of Netanyahu's main opponents when he founded the centrist Yesh Atid party in 2012.

Lapid has served as finance and foreign minister and briefly took over as prime minister in 2022 as part of a power-sharing deal with Bennett, with whom he is again allied.

An avowed secularist, Lapid has the polish of a TV star and is ever-present on social media, routinely taking Netanyahu to task with biting commentary.

But few observers see him winning on his own as he struggles to win voters beyond his core base of urban and secular Israelis.

24 October 2026, Israel, Tel Aviv: Yisrael Beytenu party leader Avigdor Lieberman arrives surrounded by security personnel during a rally at Hostages Square to demand the establishment of an independent state commission of inquiry into the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks and the events leading up to them, ahead of Israel's parliamentary election on October 27. (dpa)

- Avigdor Lieberman: The secular nationalist -

Born in Soviet Moldova in 1958, Avigdor Lieberman moved to Israel in the late 1970s and is a veteran of the political scene, taking a hardline nationalist stance on national security while staying staunchly secular.

The founder of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, Lieberman initially relied on the Russian-speaking electorate before gradually broadening his base.

He was once a close Netanyahu associate, with some crediting Lieberman with helping engineer the premier's razor-thin upset victory in 1996 that first brought him to power.

Lieberman now regularly criticizes Netanyahu in heated terms, calling him a failure on security.

Lieberman is one of the few politicians to have headed three of Israel's key ministries -- foreign, defense and finance.

Mansour Abbas, head of Israel's conservative Islamic Raam party, speaks during an interview with AFP in Nazareth, in northern Israel, on October 21, 2026. (AFP)

- Mansour Abbas: The potential kingmaker -

Arab-Israeli party leader Mansour Abbas is seeking to mobilize his community, which makes up 20 percent of the population, to prevent Netanyahu's return to power.

Abbas's Raam became the first Arab party to join an Israeli government in Bennett's 2021 coalition and he could again be a kingmaker if the opposition agrees to rely on his lawmakers to oust Netanyahu.

In a recent interview with AFP, the former dentist vowed to bring out voters to replace Netanyahu's "racist, fascist right-wing government".

Netanyahu has tried to tarnish Jewish opposition leaders by constantly raising the specter that they would team up with Abbas, whose roots are in political Islam.

Seeking to broaden support, Abbas has taken the unprecedented step of tapping an Israeli Jew, former police official Yoav Segalovitz, as a candidate on his party's slate.

Yair Golan (C), leader of The Democrats party, marches with protesters from Rabin Square to the Hostages Square, during an anti-government demonstration demanding the formation of a state commission of inquiry into Hamas' 2023 October attacks, in Tel Aviv on October 24, 2026, ahead of Israel's legislative election. (AFP)

- Yair Golan: The remaining liberal -

After years of Israel shifting to the right, Yair Golan's party The Democrats represents what remains of the mainstream left, including remnants of the Labour Party that led Israel without interruption for the country's first three decades.

Golan is the only major Israeli political leader who still explicitly backs a two-state solution with the Palestinians.

He is also liberal on social issues, calling for public transportation to run on the Jewish Sabbath.

A former senior military officer, Golan volunteered to return to duty immediately when Hamas attacked on October 7, 2023, picking up a gun and within hours personally rescuing people in his car.