Is Eisenkot Paving a New Path with Palestinians or Redesigning Netanyahu’s Approach?

With Israel's upcoming elections scheduled for October 27, Gadi Eisenkot, former head of the Israeli military and leader of the "Yesh Atid" party, stands out as one of the most prominent challengers to Benjamin Netanyahu in a contest that goes beyond the identity of the next prime minister, touching on how Israel will think about Gaza, the West Bank, and the idea of a Palestinian state.

Eisenkot's rise raises questions about whether he brings a real change in Israeli policy toward Palestinians, or simply offers a different style. Eisenkot opposes the formal annexation of the West Bank, criticizes settler violence and settlement projects, and does not support resettling Israelis in Gaza. Yet, he also does not endorse the establishment of a Palestinian state and insists on maintaining Israeli security responsibility and military freedom of action.

The Position on a Palestinian State

In one of the most sensitive issues, Eisenkot does not present himself as a candidate for a two-state solution. In statements reported by Israeli media, he described the two-state solution as a "bitter mistake," stating he sees no current basis for establishing a Palestinian state, and even went so far as to declare his rejection of creating a Palestinian state should he assume leadership of the government.

His vision centers on Palestinians managing their own civil affairs, while Israel retains security responsibility and military operational freedom. This specific point significantly narrows the gap between him and Netanyahu, who similarly rejects a Palestinian state and frames the issue as an existential security concern tied to preventing Palestinian territories from becoming a threat to Israel.

Suleiman Al-Saud, chairman of the Jordanian Parliament's Palestine Committee, argues this similarity should not obscure the substantial differences between Eisenkot and Netanyahu in managing the conflict. He notes that Netanyahu has pushed Israeli policy into more extreme territory by relying on right-wing nationalist and religious parties, expanding settler influence, and deepening Israeli control over the West Bank.

He told "Al-Araby Al-Jadeed": "Netanyahu's problem isn't just rejecting a Palestinian state; it's turning that rejection into an open-ended policy accompanied by settlement expansion, de facto annexation, and the rejection of any political horizon. Eisenkot, by contrast, offers a more cautious approach, particularly in the West Bank and Gaza, seeking to reassert strategic, security, and diplomatic considerations, including relations with Washington."

Al-Saud emphasizes that the core difference between them remains limited regarding the Palestinian issue: both currently reject establishing a Palestinian state, and both seek to maintain Israeli security control. Therefore, Eisenkot's potential rise to power might signify a change in style, priorities, and coalition-building rather than a complete shift in Israel's overall policy toward Palestinians.

The Position on the West Bank

Netanyahu's government has relied on alliances with hardline right-wing parties pushing for expanded settlement and enhanced Israeli control over Palestinian lands, with ministers like Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir advocating for asserting Israeli sovereignty over large parts of the West Bank.

Eisenkot opposes unilateral annexation, arguing such steps could harm Israel's interests, especially its relationship with the United States, and criticizes certain settlement projects he views as creating strategic and diplomatic damage.

The "E1" project serves as a clear example of this divergence. Eisenkot has criticized the E1 plan, while Netanyahu's government sees expanding settlement construction as part of strengthening the Israeli presence in the West Bank. Nevertheless, Eisenkot does not go as far as calling for dismantling settlements or withdrawing from the West Bank.

He supports maintaining settlements he considers legally established but does not advocate ending the entire settlement project. This positions his stance closer to recalibrating settlement policy than abandoning it altogether.

The Position on Settlers

Netanyahu politically depends on parties whose core agenda includes settlement expansion and extending Israeli sovereignty, whereas Eisenkot attempts to draw a line between what he sees as settlements serving Israel's national interest and what he views as extremism undermining Israel's security and international relations.

Thus, his disagreement with extremist settlers does not mean rejecting the settlement project in its entirety, but rather rejecting certain tools and consequences associated with it. Eisenkot is not entering the election from the traditional Israeli left position, but from a nationalist-security standpoint aiming to redefine state priorities from within the Zionist camp.

Gaza: A Point of Difference

Eisenkot does not support resettling Israelis in the Gaza Strip, nor does he see establishing new Jewish settlements there as an Israeli objective. However, he does not call for a full Israeli withdrawal either, believing it is necessary to maintain the army's ability to operate inside Gaza to prevent a repeat of the October 7 attack, while ending Hamas rule and establishing arrangements allowing Palestinians to manage their civil affairs.

Here, Eisenkot proposes a post-war vision based on Palestinian civil administration in exchange for Israeli security dominance. Netanyahu, meanwhile, ties any Israeli withdrawal from Gaza to achieving security conditions, foremost among them dismantling Hamas's military capabilities. He has not definitively closed the door on the idea of Israeli settlement in the strip, despite his government not officially endorsing a clear plan for civilian settlement revival there.