Israel's neighbors expect little foreign policy shift after election

Arab nations are preparing for a continuation of the status quo in Israeli foreign policy, regardless of which side wins the upcoming coalition talks. Regional officials and analysts told Deutsche Welle that neither the incumbent camp nor the opposition bloc will drastically alter Israel's approach to its borders or its relationship with the Palestinians.

This assessment follows an election that produced no clear winner. The outcome hinged on whether Gadi Eisenkot, Netanyahu's main rival, could form a stable government. While exit polls initially suggested an Eisenkot victory, the result is now contested. Both camps have moved to assemble coalitions, but the immediate diplomatic impact remains muted.

Egyptian politician Mostafa Bakry noted on X that Arab joy at Netanyahu's near failure does not imply a major policy shift. He described the two leaders as two sides of the same coin. Beth Oppenheim, a policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, agreed, predicting an Eisenkot government would be politically fragile and limited in its room to maneuver.

The primary differences between the two camps lie in domestic policy rather than international relations. An Eisenkot-led government would likely halt the judicial overhaul and open a state commission of inquiry into the October 7 attacks. It would also pass a new conscription law. However, Oppenheim stated that the security doctrine adopted after October 7, which involves pre-empting threats and holding buffer zones, has been embraced by nearly all Jewish Israeli parties.

The prospect of a two-state solution remains distant. During the campaign, Netanyahu's Likud party used the slogan 'The right or Palestine' to warn against an accommodating opposition. Eisenkot stated in August that there is no Palestinian state under his potential government. Mairav Zonszein, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, told the Associated Press that a new government might only slow the acceleration of activity in the occupied territories rather than reverse it.

Saudi Arabia has hardened its conditions for normalization with Israel since the war in Gaza, which has killed at least 70,000 Palestinians. Last week, Saudi Arabia co-signed a communique with Egypt, Turkey, and Pakistan calling Israel the fundamental source of instability in the region. Despite this, analysts suggest that a less hardline Israeli government would make it easier for Gulf states to admit to backchannel cooperation currently in place.

In Syria, Israeli troops have penetrated up to 1,160 kilometers from the disputed border. A study by the Syrian think tank Etana reported 1,996 ground operations in southwest Syria between January and September this year. Ksenia Svetlova, an associate fellow at Chatham House, suggested that a centrist Israeli government might revive negotiations for a security agreement with Damascus, a process that stalled late in 2026 after Israel refused to withdraw to 1974 lines.

Lebanon also anticipates easier dealings with an Eisenkot-led bloc. Although Eisenkot is associated with the 'Dahiyeh Doctrine' of asymmetric warfare, Lebanese officials view him as more manageable than Netanyahu. One official told L'Orient Today that when Bennett and Lapid ousted Netanyahu in 2021, the two countries successfully concluded a maritime agreement. This history suggests that a shift in leadership could facilitate the ongoing negotiations over an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon.