Netanyahu and the ballot box: When war becomes part of political calculations

Writer: Dr. Asaad Al-Awawi

Does Benjamin Netanyahu want to end the crises, or does he want to manage them in a way that serves his political survival? Can military escalation, at a sensitive electoral moment, turn from a security option into a tool in the competition for power? What does it mean for US President Donald Trump to enter the Israeli elections, declaring his support for Netanyahu, at a time when security calculations are intertwined with the future of the government?

These questions are not ready-made accusations, but rather an introduction to understanding the complex relationship between security and elections in Israel, where the calculations of the home front are intertwined with wars and regional confrontations, and the Palestinian territories remain one of the arenas most affected by this equation.

When elections approach, the government's performance on security files becomes part of the public debate. The Prime Minister may seek to show firmness and the ability to deter, while his opponents try to hold him responsible for security and political failures. In such circumstances, escalation can rearrange public priorities and move the discussion from issues of governance, economics, and political responsibility to questions of security and external threats.

But it is necessary to distinguish between using crises politically and deciding to go to war for electoral reasons. Timing alone does not prove intentions, and statements and warnings are not sufficient, without additional evidence, to conclude that Netanyahu decided to ignite a new confrontation to save his political future. However, the possibility of electoral calculations interfering with security decisions deserves oversight and serious discussion, especially when the cost of these decisions is too great for one community to bear.

Trump enters the election line: support goes beyond Israel's borders

The scene gains an additional dimension with US President Donald Trump entering the Israeli elections and declaring his support for Netanyahu. This position cannot be separated from the nature of the strategic relationship between Washington and Tel Aviv, nor from the attempt to employ this relationship to serve the political priorities of each party.

For Netanyahu, public support from the President of the United States represents an opportunity to present himself to the Israeli voter as a partner who enjoys the trust of the US administration and is able to maintain the relationship with Washington in light of regional tensions. It also allows him to highlight his relationship with Trump as one of the elements of his political power, at a time when security and foreign policy issues overlap with the internal debate about the future of the Israeli leadership.

As for Trump, his support for Netanyahu raises questions about the limits of external interference in the electoral competition within an allied country, and about the nature of the messages that this interference carries to the Israeli voter and to the entire region.

This does not mean that the American position will decide the elections or determine voters’ attitudes, as this is an issue that depends on multiple internal Israeli factors. But the significance of this support is that it gives the relationship with Washington an additional presence in the electoral battle, and makes the American-Israeli alliance part of the discussion about leadership, security, and foreign policy.

The question that concerns the Palestinians here is not only: Will Trump’s support contribute to strengthening Netanyahu’s position? But also: What is the nature of the policies that this support might entail, and what are its repercussions on the occupation, settlement, war, and the future of the political settlement?

American support should not only be measured by the strength of the alliance between the two governments, but also by the extent of Washington’s willingness to use its influence to stop the escalation, protect civilians, prevent undermining the chances of peace, and deal with Palestinian rights as a political and legal entitlement, not a secondary issue in alliance calculations.

Palestine is not a detail in the equation

Any escalation that may serve, or is believed to serve, Israeli internal calculations could have consequences for the Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem: more restrictions, an expansion of the circle of violence, economic and social pressures, and a further decline in the chances of reaching a just political settlement.

Here lies the deeper problem: that the future of the Palestinians will become affected by the balances of the Israeli government, its electoral crises, and the nature of the relationship between its president and the American administration, without the Palestinians having sufficient political tools to protect their national interests from the fluctuations of these calculations.

Therefore, the Palestinians should not hinge their future on the fall or survival of Netanyahu, nor assume that changing the Israeli government will automatically lead to a change in its policies. The issue is broader than the person of the Prime Minister, and is also linked to Israeli political and institutional trends that go beyond a single electoral cycle, and to the nature of the American position on the continuation of the occupation, settlements, and the rights of the Palestinian people.

What is required for the Palestinians is to move from waiting for what Israel will decide or what Washington will support to building a national position capable of dealing with various possibilities: unifying the political decision, renewing legitimacy, activating diplomatic and legal work, protecting Palestinian society, and formulating a national strategy that does not change with every Israeli internal crisis or change in the American administration.

The Israeli elections are an internal matter, but the effects of the Israeli government’s decisions do not remain within its borders, and American support is not a separate detail from the balance of power in the region. The Palestinians and the international community have the right to hold accountable any policy that increases civilian suffering or undermines the chances of peace, whatever its security or electoral justifications.

In the end, external support may give some politicians room to maneuver, and crises may become present elements in the competition for power, but this alone does not prove that the war is being conducted for electoral purposes. The criterion is the actual decisions and their results, and the extent to which they respect international law and the rights of peoples.

The Israeli ballot box may affect the identity of the next government, and Washington's position may affect the political environment in which that government moves, but neither of them should determine the ceiling of Palestinian ambition or the shape of the Palestinian future.

The question that should concern the Palestinians is not only who will rule Israel, or who will support him in Washington, but how do the Palestinians have an independent national project that protects their rights and determines their future, regardless of who sits in the office of the Israeli Prime Minister or the White House.