Egyptian researcher: Israeli elections won't change strategic policies

The Israeli elections held on 27 October 2026 have raised questions about the future of Israel’s strategic direction and its implications for the balance of power in the Middle East. The elections come amid competition between Benjamin Netanyahu and Gadi Eisenkot for the premiership, the continuing repercussions of the Gaza war, rising tensions with Iran, multiple fronts of confrontation in Lebanon and Syria, and growing international pressure on Israel.

In this context, Egyptian researcher Dina Yacoub argues that assessing the election results should not be limited to the possibility of a transfer of power. It should also examine the differences between Netanyahu and Eisenkot in managing security and political affairs, as well as the willingness of any new government to reconsider the principles underpinning Israeli policy.

Election Results and the Government Formation Crisis

According to Egyptian researcher Dina Yacoub, the results reflect a clear decline in the previous governing coalition’s ability to retain its parliamentary majority. However, they do not give the opposition an independent majority that would enable it to form a government without additional agreements.

Yacoub points out that, in a significant political development, leaders of five opposition parties announced on 3 November their support for a candidate to form the government, agreeing to begin negotiations over its programme and coalition arrangements. The candidate is Eisenkot.

"Nevertheless, disagreements remain over the nature of possible cooperation with Arab parties, representing one of the main obstacles to turning this political support into a stable parliamentary majority," she said.

"Thus, the issue is no longer solely about Netanyahu’s ability to remain in office, but also about Eisenkot’s ability to turn the opposition alliance into a cohesive governing coalition. The possibilities of forming a national unity government or continuing the political deadlock remain open, given the differences among parties over security issues, religious affairs and the future relationship with Arab parties," she added.

Iran and the Continuity of Israel’s Security Doctrine

On Iran, Dina Yacoub believes that "it remains one of the most important factors shaping Israeli security policy, and a transfer of power, if it takes place, is unlikely to bring about a fundamental change in Israel’s position towards Tehran. Netanyahu and Eisenkot both regard Iran’s nuclear programme as a strategic threat and agree on the need to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, while retaining the military option among the tools available to address this threat."

She continued: "However, the potential difference between them concerns how the confrontation is managed and which tools are used. Netanyahu’s policy has been associated with expanding political and military pressure on Iran, while Eisenkot has proposed an approach focused on combining diplomatic pressure, strict international monitoring, intelligence operations and military preparedness when necessary."

She added: "Proposals published regarding his electoral programme indicate an interest in restricting Iran’s ability to resume its nuclear activities and expanding the scope of efforts to address its missile capabilities. This does not mean ruling out the use of force, but rather reflects an approach that seeks to manage the Iranian threat through an integrated set of security, military and diplomatic tools."

She explained that "the difference between Netanyahu and Eisenkot does not lie in their fundamental strategic objective, but in how they seek to achieve it, how they assess its costs and when they choose to use instruments of power. Coordination with the United States will remain a decisive factor in determining the direction of Israeli policy towards Iran, particularly given the potential consequences of any new military confrontation for the security of the Gulf, maritime routes and energy markets."

The Palestinian Cause and the Future of the Conflict in Gaza and the West Bank

On the Palestinian cause, Egyptian researcher Dina Yacoub notes that the declared positions of Netanyahu and Eisenkot do not indicate any fundamental disagreement over the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with full sovereignty. Both oppose this option under the current political circumstances and insist that Israel must retain security control over the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

"In the Gaza Strip, both sides adopt a hardline position on the future governance of the territory, linking a complete Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of Hamas and the end of its control over the Strip. Neither rules out resuming military operations if arrangements that achieve these objectives are not reached," she said.

Eisenkot’s approach to managing the post-war phase may differ, as he has shown greater willingness to consider international initiatives and political arrangements that could lead to replacing Hamas's administration while maintaining Israel’s security conditions. However, the success of this approach will depend on whether Palestinian, regional and international parties accept such arrangements.

Commenting further on Palestinian affairs, Yacoub said: "In the West Bank, some of the more apparent differences between the two emerge. Eisenkot supports settlements in principle but calls for compliance with Israeli law. He opposes unauthorized settlement outposts and acts of violence committed by settlers against Palestinians. He also opposes the E1 settlement project because of its potential impact on Palestinian geographical contiguity between the northern and southern West Bank and East Jerusalem."

She added: "These positions do not mean that Eisenkot supports a two-state solution or fully recognizes Palestinian political rights. However, they indicate a difference in how he approaches settlement activity and the West Bank compared with the policies of Netanyahu’s government and its far-right partners."

Lebanon and Syria and the Management of Regional Threats

On the Lebanese front, Dina Yacoub believes there are no indications that Eisenkot’s accession to the premiership would lead to an end to the policy of military pressure on Hezbollah. She noted that both camps view the group's military capabilities as a threat to Israeli security and stress the need to limit them and prevent the rebuilding of its military infrastructure.

In this regard, she said: "However, Eisenkot may be more willing to expand the diplomatic roles of the United States and France and work with Lebanese institutions, particularly the Lebanese army, within the framework of security arrangements aimed at reducing Hezbollah’s influence. This reflects a potential difference in the means of managing the issue, rather than a confirmed shift towards Israeli withdrawal or a comprehensive political settlement."

She added: "In Syria, Israel’s priority remains preventing the emergence of military threats along its northern border, curbing Iranian influence and maintaining freedom of military movement when necessary. Published assessments of Eisenkot’s positions indicate that he does not support an immediate withdrawal from areas Israel considers strategically important for security. However, he may view the military presence as leverage that could be used in future negotiations."

She stressed that any change in Israel’s leadership could affect how the Lebanese and Syrian fronts are managed, but would not necessarily alter the security considerations guiding Israeli policy towards them.

International Relations and Regional Normalization

On international relations, Dina Yacoub believes that the way Israel manages its relations with the United States and European countries could change to some extent if Eisenkot comes to power. She noted that Israel has faced growing diplomatic pressure in recent years because of the war in Gaza, its humanitarian consequences and disagreements over the Israeli government's policies in the Palestinian territories.

"Eisenkot has put forward rhetoric focused on restoring trust with Western allies, improving coordination with the United States and reducing tensions with European countries. This could give him greater room to engage with international diplomatic initiatives compared with the confrontational approach adopted by Netanyahu’s government on several issues," she said.

She added: "However, improving international relations does not necessarily mean changing Israel’s fundamental positions on the Palestinian cause. Eisenkot’s opposition to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state remains a major obstacle to achieving genuine progress in the peace process."

On Arab normalization, Yacoub said Israel would continue seeking to expand its political, economic and security relations with Arab countries, particularly in light of shared interests related to regional security, technology and energy.

However, the continuation of the war in Gaza and the absence of a clear political horizon for the Palestinian cause impose real constraints on expanding this process, particularly efforts to reach a normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia.

Implications of Israeli Political Changes for Egyptian National Security

Dina Yacoub points out that the Israeli elections have direct significance for Egypt, given the connection between Egyptian national security and developments in the Gaza Strip, arrangements along the eastern border, the future of the Palestinian cause, as well as security in the Red Sea and the eastern Mediterranean.

She noted that Gaza is at the forefront of these challenges, saying: "The continuation of military operations or failure to reach stable political and security arrangements could increase pressure on Egypt’s borders and bring the possibility of escalation back to the forefront. Cairo remains committed to rejecting the forced displacement of Palestinians into Egyptian territory, preserving the unity of Palestinian territories and ensuring that Sinai does not become an alternative to a political solution to the Palestinian cause."

She added: "Egyptian security is also linked to the future of security arrangements along the Philadelphi Corridor and at the Rafah crossing, as well as any potential changes in the nature of Israel’s military presence near the Egyptian border. Therefore, dealing with any new Israeli government will remain contingent on preserving existing security commitments and preventing the imposition of unilateral measures that undermine Egyptian sovereignty or Palestinian interests."

She further noted that, on the broader regional level, an escalation in the confrontation between Israel and Iran could affect security in the Red Sea, trade through the Suez Canal and the stability of energy markets. Continued tensions in Lebanon and Syria would also add new dimensions to regional security calculations and increase the importance of Egyptian coordination with Arab and international partners to contain escalation.

Emphasizing this point, she said: "From this perspective, the significance of the Israeli elections for Egypt is not limited to the identity of the next prime minister. Rather, it is linked to the policies his government will adopt towards Gaza, the Egyptian border, the Palestinian cause and regional balances of power."

Dr. Dina Yacoub is a Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Badr University in Cairo and a researcher specializing in international relations, foreign policy analysis, regional security issues and Middle Eastern affairs.

ANHA