There is no doubt that the recent elections in Israel are significant in every sense. However, in the Israeli case specifically, and perhaps uniquely, anyone following political developments quickly realizes that the fall of Benjamin Netanyahu and the rise of Prime Minister-designate, former General Gadi Eisenkot, may be nothing more than a reproduction of the same political system and merely a change of faces.
In reality, what is happening is playing for time and replacing one face with another that carries essentially the same features, regardless of the outward appearance. We fully understand that the crimes committed by Netanyahu are so heinous and contemptuous of all human values that wishing for his downfall becomes, for many, an achievement in itself. That is to say, one cannot ask a people who have lost their children, women, land, homes, and even trees for pure objectivity, or to recognize that his removal might grant Israel a fresh opportunity to salvage its image before a world that has begun to reconsider its stance toward it.
We believe that betting on a fundamental shift in Israeli policy toward the Palestinian cause is unrealistic. Objective facts demonstrate that Eisenkot operates strictly beneath the ceiling set by Netanyahu and his allies. This is clearly manifested in the new prime minister's adoption of an absolute "veto" against the establishment of an independent Palestinian state - a position he explicitly declared during his recent election campaign.
This ideological alignment between the two men also extends to their military approach. Eisenkot is no man of peace, as published accounts indicate he was the actual architect of the 2008 developments, which relied on total destruction and the use of disproportionate force against civilians and infrastructure to impose deterrence - the very same approach used by successive Netanyahu governments to destroy infrastructure and the most basic necessities of life for the population in Gaza.
Moreover, the new prime minister's handling of the settlement file reveals a clear division of roles. While Eisenkot criticizes settler terrorism in order to improve Israel's international image and absorb the anger of Western capitals, news reports reveal that his security and political plans include no intention to dismantle major settlement blocs in the West Bank; rather, he views them as an integral part of Israeli national security.
Based on these deeply shared traits, betting that a difference between the two men will yield meaningful results in how the conflict is managed becomes, in our estimation, akin to an illusion manufactured by politics and elections - a mere shedding of the skin and nothing more. Therefore, the difference between the two men is one of appearance rather than substance: Eisenkot replaces Netanyahu's clamor and legal battles with the quiet demeanor of a discreet military man and an attempt to mend damaged diplomatic ties, yet ultimately both walk the very same roadmap - securing military superiority, killing the idea of establishing a Palestinian state, and relentlessly confronting it.
In light of all these facts, it appears to us that the international momentum gained by the Palestinian cause in the wake of Netanyahu's crimes faces a different kind of challenge following these elections, with the rise of a new prime minister who seeks to market the occupation in a different, more indirect diplomatic language without altering its essence in any way.
Here lies the fear that the suffering of Gaza's residents will fall victim to the reprieve granted to Israel by the recent elections, and that a sense of complacency may set in regarding the gains achieved for the Palestinian cause. The most significant achievements for the Palestinian cause on the international stage are embodied in the rising wave of recognition of the State of Palestine as a step toward safeguarding the "two-state solution."
Among the most significant gains is the unprecedented international legal prosecution before the International Court of Justice, where Israel faced, for the first time in its history, accusations of committing "genocide" in a case brought by South Africa and backed by dozens of countries. Furthermore, under rulings by the International Criminal Court, Netanyahu and ministers in his government became internationally wanted on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
We must also recall the major shifts in global public opinion and the widespread solidarity achieved. Perhaps the greatest shift capable of making a decisive difference in the future is the fracturing of unconditional support inside the United States.
The crux of the matter: Israel's policies are not those of individuals, but an ideology governing whoever successively takes the helm of power. The challenge lies in ensuring the Palestinian cause does not waste time on illusory opportunities for course correction.
