Photo via economictimes.indiatimes.com
Israeli Opposition Aims to Oust Netanyahu, but Shares His Palestine Stance
Four parties united to remove Netanyahu in the Oct 27 election largely oppose Palestinian statehood, limiting policy shifts on Gaza and the West Bank.
What happened
Four Israeli opposition parties—led by Gadi Eisenkot's Yashar, Yair Lapid's Yesh Atid, Naftali Bennett's Together alliance, and Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu—have announced a coordinated campaign to remove Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from power in the October 27 election. On September 26, their leaders signed a declaration pledging to work together to form a government and to refrain from attacking each other during the campaign.
While the opposition has taken Netanyahu to task personally over governance, security failures, and his management of the three-year war in Gaza, analysts and their stated positions reveal minimal daylight between the opposition and the current government on core Palestinian issues. Eisenkot, viewed as the opposition's most likely next prime minister, has explicitly rejected the two-state solution, calling it "delusional" after October 7. He opposes Palestinian statehood, backs continued Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank, and has vowed that no Palestinian state would be established under his government. Lapid, while historically sympathetic to a two-state framework, has said the Palestinian peace process is "not a priority" and has opposed returning Gaza to Palestinian Authority control. Naftali Bennett explicitly rejects Palestinian statehood on security grounds. Even within the opposition, the far-right Lieberman accused Netanyahu of being too soft by pointing to his 2009 support for Palestinian statehood—a smear campaign that underscores the rightward shift.
Analysts note that an opposition victory could bring marginal improvements, such as reining in settler violence or taking a more cooperative approach to Gaza reconstruction. However, the opposition alliance shares the government's core positions on maintaining Israeli settlements, controlling Palestinian territory, and rejecting Palestinian political sovereignty. The 2026 election is thus shaping up as a referendum on Netanyahu's personal leadership rather than a choice between fundamentally different visions for Israel's role in the occupied territories.
Chanakya's Move
The opposition's move reveals a strategic choice: unite around opposition to Netanyahu personally, not Palestinian statehood. This is a bet that Israeli voters are fatigued by Netanyahu's governance and his role in the October 7 intelligence failure, but not fundamentally opposed to the settlement project or occupation. Eisenkot, as the most plausible replacement, is positioning himself as a technocratic alternative who will manage the occupation more rationally and restore Israel's international standing—not end it. The risk: if the opposition wins but delivers only marginal policy change, it may accelerate Palestinian radicalization and entrench the belief among Palestinians that no Israeli leadership offers a path to genuine sovereignty. Lieberman's absurd "pro-Palestine" attack on Netanyahu signals desperation on the right flank to capture voters, but also shows how narrow the actual policy range has become. A post-Netanyahu Israel could be more respectable abroad while remaining fundamentally unchanged in the territories.