Rifaat Assad: Challenged his Brother for Syria’s Presidency, Aged in Exile, Pardoned by his Nephew

Rifaat and Hafez al-Assad pictured in January 1984. (AFP)
Rifaat and Hafez al-Assad pictured in January 1984. (AFP)
TT

Rifaat Assad: Challenged his Brother for Syria’s Presidency, Aged in Exile, Pardoned by his Nephew

Rifaat and Hafez al-Assad pictured in January 1984. (AFP)
Rifaat and Hafez al-Assad pictured in January 1984. (AFP)

The Syria that Rifaat al-Assad left when he was vice president to Hafez al-Assad decades ago is not the same one that he returned to after his nephew, President Bashar al-Assad, allowed him to return to as a “citizen.” The country has changed with its foreign alliances and role in the region. Its composition has changed and it is now “home” to five armies.

Accompanied by his wives, children and grandchildren, his first glimpses of Damascus, with its streets, checkpoints, officials and his former residence, may have rekindled memories of when he was at the height of his power. He may have recalled a time back in the 1980s when he orchestrated a “coup” against his brother and surrounded the capital.

Damascus, which 21 years ago ordered his arrest should he return from exile, rose above the wounds and received him so he can avoid imprisonment in France where he was sentenced to serve for five years. Days alone will decipher the “code” that was headlined by al-Watan newspaper last week and that said that Rifaat, 84, had returned “with no political or social role”. Days will tell the extent to which this “decree” will be implemented in Damascus and Latakia.

The brothers and the Brotherhood
When he was young, Rifaat had always been overshadowed by his stronger older brother, Hafez, who was seven years his senior. In 1952, he followed in his brother’s ideological footsteps and joined the Baath party. He also followed him in joining the military and later the interior ministry.

In March 1963, the Baath military committee, which his brother was a member of, seized power. Rifaat soon joined the military academy in Homs. After graduating, he served alongside his brother, who at the time was an air force commander.

His first military “tours” took place with Salim Hatoum and the raid of President Amin al-Hafez’s residence in February 1966. The raid was aimed at toppling the first Baath government. Under President Nureddin al-Atassi, Rifaat was tasked with commanding a special unit that was formed by the military committee to “defend the regime”.

Historians say that during the late 1960s, Syria witnessed two major conflicts. The first pitted Hafez and Rifaat against Salah Jadid and his chief of intelligence Abdulkarim al-Jundi. Between February 25 and 28, 1969, the Assad brothers launched a military operation in Damascus. Tanks moved in the capital against Jundi and Jadid loyalists. The former committed suicide on March 2, 1969, to avoid arrest. On November 17, 1970, Assad carried out the “comprehensive movement”, arresting Atassi and Jadid. Rifaat was then tasked with securing Damascus.

Rifaat became commander of the Defense Companies, which boasted some 40,000 soldiers and acted almost like an independent army that was not affiliated with the official military. Rifaat rose up the ranks in the party and he expanded his activities among students, the youth and the media.

The second conflict erupted in 1979. It pitted the regime against the Muslim Brotherhood. In December 1979, Rifaat declared it was time to “respond with force” against the movement, calling on everyone to pledge their absolute loyalty. He was quoted as saying: “Stalin sacrificed 10 million people to protect the Bolshevik revolution. Syria must do the same to protect the Baath revolution.” He threatened to wage a “hundred wars, destroy a million forts and sacrifice a million lives” to preserve the state-regime. He let loose in suppressing the uprising between 1979 and 1982. The situation reached its peak when he struck Hama in February 1982.

In 1983, he sent his paratroopers to Damascus with the command to remove the hijab off women on the streets. The move was met with widespread criticism, even his brother openly condemned him.

Edge of danger
When Hafez fell ill in November 1983, it appeared that the moment Rifaat had long awaited had arrived. He began to act as though he were the “legitimate heir”, seeing himself as the only heir. He began to rally the support of his generals, drawing the extreme ire of the president.

Vice President Abdul Halim Khaddam recalled the tense situation in his memoirs, which were seen by Asharq Al-Awsat. He said he met with Hafez in March 1978 to address the extreme campaign against Rifaat among the Syrians. “This campaign weakens the regime,” Khaddam told Hafez. “You must address the situation with Rifaat.”

Indeed, Rifaat was meddling in the affairs of state and ordering around Prime Minster Mohammed Ali Halabi, who did not dare speak out.

Khaddam added: “The president wanted his brother to succeed him, but Rifaat committed a major sin when he tried to revolt against him when he had fallen ill in November 1983.”

He recalled that Hafez had at one point in 1980 told him that he wanted to appoint a vice president for the sake of “continuity, because no one knows when their time will come.” Khaddam, who was foreign minister at the time, understood that he was referring to Rifaat. His attempted coup, however, made his brother change his mind.

Remembering the failed coup, Khaddam said that when Hafez fell ill in November 1983, commander of the republican guard, Adnan Makhlouf, informed him that the president wanted to see him at hospital. “I believed that he was a victim of an assassination attempt,” said Khaddam. “I asked: ‘Was he shot or targeted by a bomb?’ to which Makhlouf replied: ‘He was struck by a heart attack.’ I headed to the hospital immediately.”

The next day, Lebanese President Amin Gemayel was scheduled to visit Syria. Hafez asked Khaddam to postpone the visit and to cite “his preoccupation with internal matters”. When Hafez left the ICU, Khaddam contacted army commander Hikmat al-Shihabi and asked him to come to the hospital. “We agreed to take measures that would avert attempts to blow up the situation in Syria, because I was fearful of Rifaat.”

Khaddam recalled how at one point he was on the phone with the Syrian ambassador to London to request that a doctor be flown over immediately. He demanded that the best doctor be sent to Syria. He had made a similar request to the envoy in Washington. Rifaat walked in at that moment and asked why should doctors be brought from abroad? Syria has doctors, he declared. Should doctors be brought in from abroad whenever anyone falls ill? Khaddam replied: “Your brother is called Hafez al-Assad, not Hafez Khaddam. It is my responsibility to provide all conditions for his recovery because I know what sort of chaos will happen if he is gone.”

Later, Khaddam said the American ambassador revealed to him that an American envoy was coming to Damascus to meet with Rifaat. He responded: “We won’t allow him to come. Syria has a state. If the United States wanted to contact us, then it should do so through the state that I represent as foreign minister.”

The next day, the Defense Companies paraded through the streets of Damascus and Rifaat declared to the people: “I am coming.” Soon after, Khaddam met with the military, Shihabi and Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass. “We agreed to bring in two units from outside Damascus. They surrounded the city and the situation became tense. When senior officers who had pledged allegiance to Rifaat found out that Hafez was out of danger, they abandoned his brother. Rifaat became isolated.”

Tense meeting
At the time, the Central Command held a meeting. Everyone was shocked at the large numbers of Defense Companies members. Addressing the meeting, Rifaat said: “The Central Command must expel from the party Ali Duba (chief of military intelligence), Ibrahim Safi (commander of Syrian forces in Lebanon), Ali Haidar (commander of the special forces) and Mohammed Khawli (director of air force intelligence) because they are insulting me. I am the brother of the president. I should be treated like the president. If you don’t take a decision, then my forces will immediately occupy Damascus.”

Some of the members of the Central Command appeared hesitant. General Mustafa then addressed the gatherers: “These are your brothers. The problem can be solved if you meet together.” Khaddam then interjected, addressing Rifaat, he said: “You want to launch a coup? Go ahead. If every officer with a tank and soldiers wants to ride on our shoulders, then that is a dangerous thing. You have the tanks. Go ahead, make your move.” Rifaat was gradually becoming angrier. “I never said such a thing,” he retorted. Khaddam replied knowingly: “The discussion was recorded.”

After the meeting, Khaddam contacted Hafez to inform him of what happened. The president said he will check with Zuhair Masharqa, who was a member of the Central Command. Minutes later, Hafez told Khaddam that Masharqa had informed him that Rifaat did not make any threatening remarks. Khaddam told Hafez to check with the minister of defense and commander of the army because Masharqa was loyal to Rifaat. After around a quarter of an hour, Hafez contacted Khaddam again. “What you said was right. Zuhair is a coward and he lied to me,” said Hafez.

‘I am the regime’
In February 1984, Hafez carried out his retaliation. He ordered the arrest of Salim Barakat, Rifaat’s security aide. He also sent a message through their other brother, Jamil, to Rifaat, saying: “I am your older brother, whom you must obey. Do not forget that I am the one who made you.”

In March 1984, Hafez appointed Rifaat as vice president but with no official duties. In fact, this was not a form of promotion, but an attempt to curb Rifaat’s power through appointing him to a purely political role, one that would be under the constant watchful eye of the president. His security duties, as commander of the Defense Companies, were referred to Mohammed Ghanem.

Khaddam recalled how Rifaat’s appointment was announced. He said Hafez called the Central Command to meet in early March 1984. He informed the leadership that he had decided to appoint three vice presidents. He said he alone has the right to make such an order and name the officials, who were Rifaat Assad, Zuhair Masharqa and Abdul Halim Khaddam.

“I immediately told him that I didn’t want to be vice president or serve in any government or party position,” said Khaddam. “Hafez ended the meeting and then called me to his office. He asked me: ‘Why did you object?’ I replied: ‘How can you put Rifaat and Zuhair above me? Rifaat should be in jail, not act as first deputy to the president. I have worked tirelessly to serve my country. I will not practice any state or partisan work.’ He told: ‘Then take over the position of secretary of the Central Command.’ I rejected his offer and went home.”

“After about an hour, he called me back to his office. He welcomed me back with a laugh: ‘You are stubborn.’ He informed me that he issued a decree naming me as first vice president, followed by Rifaat and then Zuhair. I asked him what a vice president does. He replied that he is in charge of foreign policy. Soon after the decree was announced and I accepted.”

On March 30, 1984, Rifaat responded to the move. His soldiers entered Damascus with clear orders to seize power. They took over strategic positions throughout the capital and its surroundings. Rifaat’s forces clashes with Hafezloyalists, such as Ali Haidar of the special forces and Adnan Makhlouf of the republican guard.

Patrick Seale, author of Assad’s biography, “Assad: The Struggle for the Middle East,” wrote that had the two sides struck each other in the capital, the destruction would have been massive and the image of the regime would have been irreparably damaged. Hafez left the noose dangling enough for Rifaat to hang himself.

Hafez was in full military uniform, accompanied by his oldest son Bassel, who was to become his father’s right-hand man until his death in a car accident in 1994.

Hafez drove his car alone without any guards to confront Rifaat at the headquarters of his military command. Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass recalled the developments in a book, “Three months that shook Syria”. “Adnan Makhlouf, commander of the republican guard, informed me that Mr. president has headed alone to his brother’s headquarters in Mazzeh. He said the president had told him that if he was not back in an hour, then Tlass must carry out the plan (of confronting Rifaat’s forces),” wrote Tlass.

“Do you want to overthrow the regime?” Hafez asked Rifaat. “Here I am. I am the regime!” They argued and then Hafez offered Rifaat a way out, vowing to respect his dignity and interests and provide him with a safe exit to exile of his choosing. He promised that he would not arrest him.

In late April 1984, Rifaat sensed that the balance of power had started to lean in his brother’s favor to an extent that he could no longer move. He contacted his brother Jamil so that he could mediate a reconciliation and to say that he was ready to do anything the president wanted. Hafez was impatiently waiting for Rifaat to collapse and resign himself to the authority. He won the waiting game. Then the difficult negotiations began.

They agreed that the Defense Companies would come under the authority of the operations command in the armed forces. Rifaat would remain as vice president tasked with security affairs. They agreed that senior officers would travel with him to Moscow. On May 28, 1984, a plane carrying Rifaat and his senior officers flew to Moscow to cool down. They were summoned one by one back to Syria and Rifaat alone remained in exile.

‘My brother doesn’t love me’
It was said that prior to leaving Syria, Rifaat had thrown a huge banquet for his friends. “It appears as though my brother no longer loves me. When he sees me, he frowns. I am not an American agent. I did not conspire against my country,” he told them. “If I were a fool, I would have destroyed the entire city, but I love this place. My men have been here for 18 years, the people are used to us and they love us. Now the commandos want to kick us out.”

Rifaat returned to Syria in 1992 at the wishes of his mother, who died later that year. In 1994, he extended his condolences to Hafez when his son Bassel died. Later that year, he was discharged from his position in the army and kept his post as vice president before later being relieved of his duties.

In 1999, his supporters clashed in a gunfight with government forces in Latakia. He set up a satellite channel in London in September 1997. He established his own party in Europe that is headed by his son, Sumer. The party had called for political change and was met with criticism by loyalists and the opposition.

When Hafez died on June 10, 2000, he issued a statement to elegize him. He claimed to be his heir, but his calls fell on deaf ears. Khaddam ordered Rifaat’s arrest should he attempt to attend his brother’s funeral.

After the eruption of the 2011 protests in Syria, Rifaat stood against the regime. His son, Ribal, is openly involved in politics. Rifaat’s presence in the media gradually faded. He appeared during the presidential elections this year when he voted for his nephew at the Syrian consulate in Paris. He then sent a cable of congratulation to Bashar on his reelection. On Thursday, he returned to Syria.



Takeaways From Israel’s Inconclusive Election

People sit outside the Israeli parliament Knesset in Jerusalem, 28 October 2026. (EPA)
People sit outside the Israeli parliament Knesset in Jerusalem, 28 October 2026. (EPA)
TT

Takeaways From Israel’s Inconclusive Election

People sit outside the Israeli parliament Knesset in Jerusalem, 28 October 2026. (EPA)
People sit outside the Israeli parliament Knesset in Jerusalem, 28 October 2026. (EPA)

Israelis faced political uncertainty Wednesday after no clear winner appeared to have emerged from a high-turnout election. The path to forming a government is fraught for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his main opponent, and another round of elections cannot be ruled out.

The first elections since Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack were seen as a pivotal moment in Israel's history, serving both as a referendum on Netanyahu's nearly unbroken 17-year rule and a choice between different visions for the country's future.

The initial results show a deeply divided electorate with multiple fault lines.

Netanyahu lost support but could remain in office. His main opponent, former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, would most likely have to partner with Arab-led parties to unseat him, a politically costly move that could alienate other opposition factions.

They could also partner with Netanyahu in a broad-based unity government, but that would be seen as a major betrayal by many of their voters after they put his ouster at the heart of their campaigns.

Final, official results are expected on Thursday or Friday, but there will likely be weeks of negotiations before a prime minister is declared — or new elections are called.

Here are the main takeaways:

Netanyahu is down but not out

Initial results show Netanyahu's religious and ultranationalist coalition falling short of a parliamentary majority of 61 seats, after reaching a peak of 68 seats in the previous parliament. Netanyahu's right-wing Likud also appears to have been whittled down from 32 seats to around 27.

That could reflect growing disillusionment with his long rule, anger at his handling of the Oct. 7 attacks and their aftermath, and his support for the exemption of ultra-Orthodox Jews from military service, an intensely divisive issue as the country is embroiled in multiple wars.

But Likud still appears to have emerged as the largest party, putting Netanyahu in the best position to be tasked first with forming a government.

He would need support from at least one opposition party, or several defectors from that side, to rule. Most have promised not to partner with Netanyahu, but the Israeli leader, a savvy political operator, could offer them concessions. He is also likely to argue that a broad-based government under his leadership is preferable to one relying on Arab-led parties — or another round of elections.

He can already claim a victory of sorts by having retained much of his support even after the deadliest security breakdown in Israel's history unfolded on his watch.

Netanyahu “manages to overcome situations that I can’t see anyone else managing to overcome,” said Tamar Hermann, senior research fellow at the Israel Democracy Institute, a Jerusalem think tank. “Politically, he is a magician.”

The opposition faces an uphill battle

Initial results indicate that parties opposed to Netanyahu won a parliamentary majority. But they include Arab-led factions that have long been politically sidelined, and which some Jewish-led parties have refused to partner with.

In the face of “a politics of supremacy, racism and exclusion, we are offering a totally different alternative,” Yousef Jabareen, the head of the Arab Joint List, said on X. “The change comes through Jewish-Arab partnership, a true and equal partnership. Nothing more, nothing less.”

Only one Arab party has ever joined an Israeli governing coalition, in 2021, and that government only lasted about 18 months. The level of distrust is far higher after Oct. 7 and the resulting wars. Netanyahu is likely to exploit that by casting any partnership with Arab-led parties as illegitimate or treasonous.

Without the Arabs, Eisenkot and his Jewish allies have no clear path to forming a coalition to unseat Netanyahu, and another round of elections might further weaken their hand.

Tens of thousands of Israelis who flew in for this election may not return for another one, and Netanyahu would stay on as caretaker prime minister, giving him a platform to attack his opponents and try to expand his own coalition.

That leaves the prospect of forming a government with Netanyahu — after a campaign in which they blamed him for the failures surrounding the Oct. 7 attack, portrayed him as a threat to Israel's democratic institutions and highlighted his ongoing corruption trial.

Arab parties' success could make it harder to partner with them

The Arab-led parties represent Palestinians with Israeli citizenship, who make up about 20% of the country’s population. Descendants of Palestinians who remained in Israel after its creation in 1948, they are entitled to vote and serve in parliament.

While they hold senior roles in many sectors of Israeli society, they face discrimination, and many Jewish Israelis view them with suspicion because of their general support for the Palestinian cause.

Surging Arab turnout, driven in part by disgust at Netanyahu's far-right allies, may have delivered a historic victory for Arab-led parties, who could win around 19 seats in the 120-member Knesset.

That would give them significant power in any partnership with Eisenkot — potentially making such an alliance less likely. The opposition might also have to partner with hard-line Arab factions that are even more widely rejected among Jewish Israelis.

The results do little to assuage Israel's internal divisions

The elections were an inflection point for Israel after three years of war. But they also highlighted the same divisions that have roiled the country for decades.

Netanyahu's coalition, made up of ultranationalist and ultra-Orthodox parties, supported strengthening Israel's Jewish character. It pushed for more settlement construction in the occupied West Bank and allowed for military draft exemptions for ultra-Orthodox Jews. It also attempted to push through an overhaul of the country's judiciary in 2023 that drew mass protests.

Eisenkot's camp promoted a vision where Israel's Jewish character lives in harmony with its liberal democratic ideals. It promised honest leadership and accountability for Israel's Oct. 7 failures, vowed to bolster the judiciary and end the military draft exemptions. They also promised to fix Israel's international standing, which has deteriorated because of the Gaza war and settler violence in the West Bank.

The apparently stalemated results suggest Israel's divisions are deeper than ever.


‘Nobody Heard us’ – Why Gen Z Are Leading Protests Across Europe

 People celebrate the victory of the Student List at parliamentary election after Aleksandar Vucic conceded defeat, at Slavija Square in Belgrade, Serbia, October 26, 2026. (Reuters)
People celebrate the victory of the Student List at parliamentary election after Aleksandar Vucic conceded defeat, at Slavija Square in Belgrade, Serbia, October 26, 2026. (Reuters)
TT

‘Nobody Heard us’ – Why Gen Z Are Leading Protests Across Europe

 People celebrate the victory of the Student List at parliamentary election after Aleksandar Vucic conceded defeat, at Slavija Square in Belgrade, Serbia, October 26, 2026. (Reuters)
People celebrate the victory of the Student List at parliamentary election after Aleksandar Vucic conceded defeat, at Slavija Square in Belgrade, Serbia, October 26, 2026. (Reuters)

Maya Gourdel, a 19-year-old student in Brussels, sits at a desk writing slogans against those running her country: “If we burn, you burn with us!” The slogan, taken from the 2012 film "The Hunger Games" that has been adopted as a symbol by many youth movements globally, reflects the anger, frustration and desire for change driving Gen Z-led protests around Europe.

From the suburbs of Paris to the squares of Belgrade, thousands have taken to the streets.

The demands are various but often overlapping – frustrations with shabby schooling facilities, perceived lack of economic opportunity, cost of living, corruption, housing and a sense of not being listened to. At times those protests triggered violence – with thousands of shops in France alone being damaged or looted in recent weeks – and police firing stun grenades and water cannons.

This weekend they also brought real change – student-led protests culminated in the toppling in an election of Serbia’s long-time leader Aleksandar Vucic after nearly two years of demonstrations against perceived corruption and creeping authoritarianism.

“Waking up, the first thing we felt was certainly a sense of relief and freedom," said student protester Stasa Piletic. "Personally, I feel a sense of victory. I feel that we finally moved from protests to responsibility."

‘AN EXPLOSION OF RAGE’

Chiara, a 21-year-old student ‌in protest-hit Milan, believes “it's ‌vital to take part in people's spontaneous movements born from an explosion of rage that made collective ‌action possible.”

"I ⁠think the worst ⁠damage this ruling class has done to my generation is stealing even the ability to imagine a future, to dream," she said.

She said Italian students were confronting a reality of schools without enough teachers and crumbling buildings.

“And all of this with the prospect of an underpaid job which we didn't qualify for and the prospect of living in a tiny, overpriced house, probably away from our city, which we didn't want to live in."

Protests led by Gen Z have caused ructions globally as the generation born roughly between 1997 and 2012 found its voice, from Bangladesh in 2024 and Nepal in 2025, to India this year. Now Europe has become a focal point.

Rising prices and the cost of living are a concern for 40% of 16-30-year-olds, according to a European Union survey published in 2025.

Among the 92.7 million people in the EU who faced ⁠the risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2025, the highest risk was recorded for young adults aged 18-24 years, ‌at 26.3%, while the lowest was recorded for adults aged 65 years or over, at 18.8%.

Younger ‌people are also wary of shouldering the financial burden of an older generation that tends to vote in greater numbers. People over 60 in France make up a quarter ‌of the population but own 60% of France's wealth, according to the OFCE think tank.

French pensions are by far the biggest public expense, on track to reach ‌14% of economic output, as the population ages and voters resist raising the retirement age or reducing benefits. That is still less than Greece or Italy, which spend the largest proportion of national income on public pensions among OECD countries, at around 16% of GDP, according to OECD figures in 2025. But it is much more than Australia, Chile, Iceland, Ireland or South Korea, which spent less than 4% of GDP on public pensions, according to the OECD.

‘YOUNG PEOPLE IN EUROPE ARE UNITED’

Bilal Narjissi, a 17-year-old high school student in ‌a suburb north of Paris, has been protesting against “deplorable” conditions and staff shortages at his school. “There used to be rats,” he said.

Students were evacuated last year when a roof collapsed on the courtyard, though no one was hurt, ⁠he said.

Protests showed “that young people in ⁠Europe are united”, he said, adding, "we all agree on one point: that young people are treated like children, far too much, and that they aren't listened to enough.”

A French government report in October said pension spending had risen by 2.5 percentage points of GDP between 2000 and 2023 while that for education had declined 0.5. It also showed 32% of the education ministry’s budget went towards pensions, crowding out money for other areas.

Gourdel, too, has been protesting for better conditions in schools in Belgium.

“We tried to do it passively. Nobody heard us. It's only when people started to burn trash or that kind of stuff that the media and cameras started showing us,” she said.

The protests are still spreading, with a demonstration planned in Germany this weekend over cost of living, inequality, war and the state of schools.

Unrest has also hit Albania, where student-led demonstrations against Prime Minister Edi Rama's government, fueled by anger over perceived corruption, a lack of jobs and poor education standards, engulfed Tirana and spread to other cities.

“Our Prime Minister spent 130 days not listening to us,” said Xyke Kurti, a 19-year-old architecture student.

“If you ask a student in Albania, 'where do you see your future?' Everyone says 'outside this country'," she said, arguing that at home, even if you have talent, someone with "connections is always going to beat you".

Serbia’s student movement did what demonstrators in other European capitals can only dream of.

Now, though, comes the gritty business of governing – something neither the students nor their candidates have any experience of.

Luka Stojakovic, another protester, brushes that aside. "We have seen where people with political experience have brought us."


In Israel, Eisenkot Tries Quiet Appeal to Oust Netanyahu

 Former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the Yashar party, visits a polling station, on the day of Israel’s national election, in Ofakim, southern Israel, October 27, 2026. (Reuters)
Former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the Yashar party, visits a polling station, on the day of Israel’s national election, in Ofakim, southern Israel, October 27, 2026. (Reuters)
TT

In Israel, Eisenkot Tries Quiet Appeal to Oust Netanyahu

 Former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the Yashar party, visits a polling station, on the day of Israel’s national election, in Ofakim, southern Israel, October 27, 2026. (Reuters)
Former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the Yashar party, visits a polling station, on the day of Israel’s national election, in Ofakim, southern Israel, October 27, 2026. (Reuters)

Gadi Eisenkot, the man who could unseat Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, almost always dresses in black, speaks halting English and tends to respond in interviews with bullet-point lists, a reflection of the military culture that shaped him.

For some voters in Tuesday's general election, the 66-year-old's lack of charisma may be one of his greatest assets.

Serious and unassuming, Eisenkot is in many ways the opposite of Netanyahu, Israel's longest-serving prime minister, who has flawless American-accented English and is ever ready with headline-grabbing soundbites on US television or social media.

Eisenkot, the military chief of staff from 2015 to 2019, has vowed to unite Israelis after the divisive tenure of Netanyahu, who has moved the country sharply to the right.

"There is a large camp in Israel whose main goal in the coming election is just for things to be calmer," said Tal Elovits, a researcher at the Molad think tank.

"The middle class," he said, "is looking for someone who will look responsible, boring. I think Eisenkot has that appeal."

Eisenkot, who has been neck and neck with Netanyahu in polls, has promised to try to restore the international image of Israel, badly strained after three years of war in Gaza and violence in the occupied West Bank.

He has vowed to crack down on extremist West Bank settlers who have attacked Palestinians with impunity and recently beat up an American journalist and a French mayor, decrying the incidents as "Jewish terror" abetted by Netanyahu's government.

But the military man is no peacenik. He has even sought to play to the right of Netanyahu by vowing no Palestinian state, replaying clips from an earlier political era in which the long-serving prime minister begrudgingly voiced openness to the idea under US pressure.

Commanding the military during the 2006 war with Hezbollah, Eisenkot devised the so-called "Dahieh doctrine", named after Beirut’s southern suburb, in which Israel vowed massive force against civilian infrastructure in areas populated by the Lebanese group.

Israel has adopted the doctrine again in Gaza, causing destruction that critics say amounts to war crimes, an assertion disputed by Israel.

- Working-class roots -

Eisenkot has garnered broad public sympathy after his son Gal and two nephews were killed fighting in Gaza.

His working-class roots constitute another element of his appeal. He would be the first prime minister who is Sephardic, Jews who trace their recent origins to the Middle East and North Africa.

Unlike Netanyahu, who comes from an elite family and whose father was a prominent professor in the United States, Eisenkot is the son of Moroccan Jews, and grew up on Israel's geographic periphery.

His background came into the spotlight when a senior commentator on the pro-Netanyahu Channel 14 television station described Eisenkot as "a monkey" controlled by "Ashkenazi elitists". He was referring to Jews of European descent who have historically dominated Israel's political and economic institutions.

While the term is not necessarily a racial slur in Hebrew and can mean something akin to a "fall guy" taking the blame on behalf of others, the remark drew widespread condemnation from opposition politicians and from Netanyahu himself.

Eisenkot swiftly sought to turn the episode to his advantage.

His campaign erected billboards denouncing discrimination against the Sephardim, and his party accused Netanyahu of sidelining Sephardic members of Likud by limiting their media appearances during the campaign.

- Limited change on security -

In weekend appearances, Eisenkot met religious Jews to whom he defended Israeli control over the West Bank.

"Israeli settlement (of the West Bank) is a value, on condition that it serves the interests of the state of Israel, and it's done according to the law," he told representatives of the Religious Zionist movement on Sunday.

He appeared to be rejecting the establishment of unauthorized settlement outposts, which have fueled a recent rise in violence against Palestinians.

On Gaza, he has vowed to end Hamas rule within 18 months. He recently said this could be achieved either through the implementation of US President Donald Trump's ceasefire plan, which envisages Hamas's gradual disarmament and a transfer of power, or through "creative operations" aimed at destroying the movement's military wing.

Addressing a key source of resentment among Israelis following three years of war, Eisenkot has promised to curb exemptions from military service for religious students.

He promised a "universal national service law" requiring ultra-Orthodox Jews and Arab citizens to perform either military or civil service.

He has sought to appeal to centrist and liberal voters by pledging to "protect judicial independence, the rule of law, minority rights and a free press".

And in his final major rally before Tuesday's vote, he appealed directly to wavering Netanyahu supporters to change their vote.

"Deep down, you too know that Israel cannot go on like this," he said. "Israel needs change."