Replacing Netanyahu with Eisenkot: How Israel’s Political Deadlock Exposes the Fragility of Settler-Colonial Rule

Following the October 27, 2026, general elections in Israel, Western media outlets quickly framed the political deadlock as a pivotal crossroad for Middle Eastern democracy. As the religious-nationalist coalition of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu secured 53 seats—falling short of the 61-seat parliamentary majority—President Isaac Herzog formally tasked Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the center-right Yashar party, with forming a new government. Western commentators immediately began framing this political shift as a potential restoration of democratic norms. Liberal commentary presents Eisenkot, a former military chief of staff, as a moderate institutionalist capable of ending Netanyahu's divisive reign, reining in far-right ministers like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, and repairing Tel Aviv’s strained relationships with Western allies.

For socialists, anti-imperialists, and anti-colonial analysts, this liberal narrative represents a profound misreading of the Israeli state. The ongoing electoral impasse is not a sign of democratic vigor, nor is it a temporary policy disagreement between "hawks" and "doves." Rather, it reflects an acute structural crisis within the settler-colonial framework itself. The political deadlock exposes a state apparatus struggling to manage its internal contradictions while maintaining an brutal occupation. Far from representing genuine democratic reform, tasking Gadi Eisenkot with forming a coalition demonstrates that the fundamental machinery of Zionist statecraft—settler expansion, apartheid, and regional militarism—remains entirely intact, regardless of who sits in the Prime Minister's office.

The Illusion of Democratic Renewal and Liberal Zionism

The liberal framing of Israel’s electoral crisis rests on a fundamental fallacy: the idea that Netanyahu’s right-wing bloc represents an aberration from an otherwise functional democracy. When 19 seats won by Arab-majority parties (the Joint List and Ra'am) enabled a total of 67 lawmakers to recommend Eisenkot over Netanyahu’s 46, mainstream headlines celebrated the potential for a "broad coalition of change."

As reported by The Guardian, Herzog’s decision to mandate Eisenkot was celebrated across Western diplomatic circles as an opportunity to "unite Israelis after Netanyahu's divisive tenure" and restore institutional stability. Liberal commentators highlighted Eisenkot's pledges to establish state commissions of inquiry into intelligence failures, counter illegal West Bank settler outposts, and end ultra-Orthodox military exemptions in the name of egalitarian civic duty.

Yet, this characterization deliberately obscures the structural realities of the Israeli parliamentary system. The debate over whether to include or rely upon Arab parties reveals the racialized parameters of Israeli governance. While the Joint List and Ra'am provided external recommendations to Herzog to strategically disrupt Netanyahu’s far-right alliance, Eisenkot and his key coalition partners (such as Yisrael Beiteinu's Avigdor Lieberman) explicitly rejected formal power-sharing with Palestinian citizens of Israel. Eisenkot’s publicly declared preconditions for government—demanding non-negotiable adherence to Israel’s identity as a "Jewish state" and universal conscription into the military apparatus—were deliberately designed to exclude Palestinian representatives from actual executive power.

In an incisive critique of this dynamic published by the Palestine Chronicle, Dr. Ramzy Baroud highlights how the constitutional framework of the Knesset functions to uphold Jewish supremacy:

"This is the crux of Israel's democracy problem. While presenting itself as democratic, Israel has waged political, legal and constitutional wars against its Palestinian citizens, treating their very identity as a threat to the Jewish character of the state... Section 7A of its Basic Law allows electoral lists and candidates to be disqualified for rejecting Israel's existence as a Jewish and democratic state. Imagine Black American politicians being required to recognize the United States as a white state before being permitted to contest elections."

The fundamental issue is not Netanyahu’s individual authoritarian tendencies, but a constitutional design that codifies national self-determination as unique to the Jewish population (as formalized in the 2018 Nation-State Law). Replacing Netanyahu with Eisenkot does not alter these foundational legal pillars. Liberal Zionism seeks to manage and sanitize the colonial status quo for international consumption, whereas Netanyahu’s coalition pursues its objectives through overt right-wing nationalism.

The Dahiya Doctrine: Militarism as State Foundation

To understand why an Eisenkot-led government offers no departure from state violence, one must examine the military career and strategic legacy of Gadi Eisenkot himself. Presented in Western press coverage as a measured military professional, Eisenkot’s primary contribution to Israeli strategic doctrine is the formalization of the Dahiya doctrine during his tenure in the IDF Northern Command and later as Chief of General Staff (2015–2019).

Named after the deliberate destruction of the Dahiya suburb of Beirut during the 2006 war on Lebanon, the doctrine explicitly advocates for the use of overwhelming, asymmetric force against civilian infrastructure in enemy-controlled territory. As Eisenkot articulated in 2008:

"We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases... This is not a recommendation. This is a plan."

The Dahiya doctrine serves as an explicit anti-imperialist evidence of state-sanctioned terror. It formalizes collective punishment, domicide, and infrastructure destruction as standard military protocol—a strategy witnessed directly across Gaza, the West Bank, and southern Lebanon.

Writing in Common Dreams, Baroud underscores the moral and political bankruptcy of expecting human rights improvements from a military architect of this status:

"Eisenkot is no peacemaker, but a committed Zionist whose military record and political positions offer Palestinians little reason to expect justice. A new Israeli government will not erase the crimes of the state or fundamentally dismantle its apartheid system."

Far from offering a break from state violence, Eisenkot represents the technocratic perfection of military coercion. While Netanyahu utilizes populist rhetoric to mobilize his base, Eisenkot applies calculated strategic destruction under the guise of national security. For the populations living under occupation or subject to aerial bombardment, the operational result remains identical: the systematic suppression of Palestinian life to secure settler hegemony.

Consensus on War: The Bipartisan Imperial Project

A core tenet of socialist analysis is recognizing how internal political crises within imperialist and settler-colonial states are routinely offset through external military aggression. The coverage of the October 27 election by the World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) exposes how both major Zionist blocs remain fundamentally aligned on the imperative of regional war and geopolitical domination:

"The election campaign was largely fought as a contest between two war criminals over how best to prosecute the genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza and extend it to the West Bank, and continue the ongoing wars against Lebanon, Syria and above all Iran... Both camps, the ultra-nationalists and supposed 'liberal' Zionists, fought a racist campaign against the Palestinians. They are all committed to the continuation and expansion of the wars... pledging Israel's services as Washington's proxy."

The political struggle between Netanyahu’s Likud and Eisenkot’s opposition does not concern whether to project imperial force, but how to manage that force efficiently. During his time in Netanyahu’s emergency war cabinet following October 7, Eisenkot did not object to the military campaign itself; rather, he criticized tactical execution, planning deficits, and diplomatic isolation.

Both factions remain entirely committed to maintaining regional strategic dominance, suppressing Palestinian resistance movements, and coordinating with U.S. imperial interests—including ongoing preparations for escalated military strikes against Iran. The structural requirement of the settler-colonial state to expand its security perimeter and maintain regional dominance ensures that regardless of coalition composition, the state's posture remains inherently aggressive.

Intersecting Crises and the Fragility of Settler-Colonial Rule

The inability of either Zionist bloc to establish a stable, governing majority reflects deeper structural fractures within Israeli society. The settler-colonial project faces simultaneous pressure points:

1. Class and Religious Fractures: The escalating conflict between secular/liberal Zionists and the growing ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) population over military conscription and state subsidies has broken long-standing political alliances.

2. Economic Strain and Military Exhaustion: Prolonged military deployments, regional instability, and mounting international isolation have placed severe pressure on the domestic economy.

3. Legitimacy Deficits Abroad: Global anti-colonial solidarity movements, alongside legal actions before international courts (such as International Criminal Court arrest warrants for state leaders), have increasingly challenged the state's international standing.

4. Palestinian Political Mobilization: Despite decades of fragmentation, land confiscation, and political disenfranchisement, Palestinian communities inside the 1948 borders and across the occupied territories continue to disrupt the political stability of the state apparatus.

As right-wing activists threaten to block parliament and challenge election results—giving rise to media warnings of a "Capitol-style scenario" in Jerusalem—the internal cohesion of the state continues to deteriorate.

However, socialists must avoid the trap of viewing this political instability as a prelude to internal self-correction. History demonstrates that settler-colonial regimes under pressure often intensify external violence and internal repression to preserve their core structures. Tactical maneuvers—such as Palestinian Arab parties offering external recommendations to oust far-right ministers—are understood by activists not as an endorsement of liberal Zionism, but as a calculated effort to disrupt the most aggressive elements of the state apparatus.

Real transformation will not emerge from the halls of the Knesset, nor will it be delivered by military figures advancing sanitized strategic doctrines. As the deadlock in Jerusalem demonstrates, genuine liberation requires dismantling the structural systems of apartheid, imperial integration, and settler-colonial displacement, replacing them with a unified struggle for justice, equality, and decolonization across historic Palestine.