Two major elections are approaching that could reshape conditions across the region, particularly the trajectory of the American-Israeli-Iranian war and developments concerning the Palestinian cause, especially Gaza.
The elections scheduled for 27 October in the occupying state will see political forces competing that may appear relatively evenly matched in electoral prospects, or at least broadly close in their electoral programmes.
Likud and its alliance with religious parties, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, will face the Zionist opposition bloc headed by Gadi Eisenkot. Both camps will seek to attract smaller political blocs in order to secure enough seats to form the next government.
The period leading up to the election makes it difficult to expect meaningful progress on proposals concerning Gaza, or even Lebanon, as transitional political periods do not usually produce major decisions.
For that reason, the aggressive conduct of the current government is likely to remain intense across several fronts, including Gaza and Lebanon, incursions into Syria, and the seizure of additional land in the occupied West Bank.
Netanyahu believes that entering an election while the war continues improves his political standing and strengthens his chances of returning as prime minister.
His approach also reflects the attitudes of a public in the occupying state that has become increasingly aggressive. Polling indicates that a majority supports the war and occupation, rejects withdrawal from Gaza and even favours the re-establishment of settlements there.
What matters most to us in the Israeli election is the weight of the Arab vote. Palestinians inside Israel are the dormant element that, if mobilised out of political inactivity and fragmentation, could become the decisive factor in determining the composition of the next Zionist government.
A Political Map Dominated by the Right
Public opinion in Israel is now divided largely between the right and the hard right.
The strongest influence today comes from settlers and the far right in the West Bank, representing an extremist form of Judaism built around a culture of extermination, the subjugation of others and territorial conquest, which they regard as inseparable from their religious inheritance.
Accordingly, there is unlikely to be any change regarding Gaza.
Netanyahu has reflected this position through his rejection of the American president’s plan, which includes the deployment of international forces and the establishment of the non-political Palestinian government envisaged in Trump’s plan to administer affairs in the Strip.
Through this position, Netanyahu seeks to reassure the Israeli public that his decisions remain independent and are not dictated, as his opponents claim, by submission to the US administration, particularly to Trump’s wishes.
The Potential Weight of the Arab Vote
The most important aspect of the Israeli election from our perspective is the potential weight of the Arab vote.
Palestinians inside Israel represent the dormant force that, if it moved beyond political inactivity and fragmentation, could become the “balance of power” and the decisive factor in determining the composition of any future Zionist government.
Arabs account for more than 20 per cent of the total population. If they contested the election through a unified list, they could potentially secure 16 or 17 seats, making the Arab bloc one of the influential forces in the Knesset.
The longstanding and bitter reality, however, is that the Arab community remains divided.
Those interested in participating in elections, who represent around 50 per cent of Palestinians inside Israel, are split between the United Arab List and the Arab Movement for Change.
The two fronts have historically been at odds. Although they recently agreed to contest the election together, the most important element of the agreement is that, once the results are announced, each party retains the right to decide independently on its position towards the future government without being bound by its partners.
This leaves the Arab blocs resembling an “acrobat’s rope” on which Zionist parties can manoeuvre, winning over one side while isolating another.
Meanwhile, the other 50 per cent of Arabs who are uninterested in elections either do not feel that participation has meaningful consequences for their lives, or have been influenced by the boycott position promoted by Islamic leader Sheikh Raed Salah, who has called for non-participation in all institutions of the occupation, including Knesset elections.
In my view, this position is overly idealistic and does not adequately address the concerns of Palestinians inside Israel, who face oppression, inadequate services and a wide range of practical grievances that successive Israeli governments have failed to address.
Palestinians inside Israel control less than 3 per cent of the total land of historic Palestine occupied in 1948.
The issue, therefore, is not purely political. Strong Arab representation in the Knesset could help secure practical demands and services for Arabs living inside the Green Line, particularly given that the occupation is long-term and could continue for decades.
There must therefore be a degree of realism in dealing with the present situation and an effort, as far as possible, to ease the lives of Arab citizens and reduce the oppression and discrimination imposed upon them.
From this perspective, I call on Sheikh Raed Salah to reconsider positions that I regard as unrealistic and unnecessarily idealistic, and which ultimately harm the interests of Arabs inside the Green Line.
Why the US Elections May Matter More
The Mamdani phenomenon in New York and Abdul El-Sayed’s experience in Michigan appear likely to be repeated during the midterm elections in several American states, as candidates who are neither Arab nor Muslim increasingly challenge the Zionist narrative that was promoted for decades.
The US elections are, in my estimation, even more important, particularly for regional issues.
These include the American-Iranian war on one hand, and the Palestinian cause in the West Bank and Gaza on the other, in addition to Lebanon.
The reason is simple: American influence over the government of “Israel” remains the decisive factor.
It is too early to anticipate the results, but there is a major qualitative shift taking place across the American political landscape, affecting public sentiment, public opinion and intellectual, media and political elites.
The victory of Zohran Mamdani, a Muslim and an immigrant, as mayor of New York represented a major and unprecedented breakthrough.
New York is a stronghold of the Zionist movement, one of America’s most important cities, one of its largest economic centres and a leading source of material and political support for the Zionist state in the United States.
Mamdani’s victory amounted to a genuine political earthquake and was made possible in significant part by forces that, until recently, had supported the Zionist movement.
These included influential Jewish groups that came to believe that Zionism and its state had moved far from Judaism through what they saw as acts of genocide, killing, crimes and aggression.
I believe that what happened in New York was only the first bead to fall from a string that has begun to unravel.
It was followed by Michigan, where the young Arab Muslim Abdul El-Sayed achieved a historic victory by winning the Democratic Party nomination for a seat in the US Senate.
This came despite AIPAC, the powerful financial, political and media arm of the Zionist movement, spending $70 million in an attempt to defeat him, an effort that ultimately failed.
A Broader Shift in American Politics
The cases of Mamdani in New York and El-Sayed in Michigan appear likely to be repeated in the midterm elections across several American states.
These elections are seeing candidacies from Americans who are neither Arab nor Muslim but who have come to reject the Zionist narrative promoted for decades, portraying Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East, a small state allegedly surrounded by a threatening mass of “criminal Arabs” seeking to drive it into the sea.
Many of these candidates are now instead expressing solidarity with the Palestinian people and recognising what they regard as the legitimate rights of the Arab Palestinian people on their national land.
The coming elections may therefore produce positive changes, allowing a degree of balance to return to strategic thinking within the US administration and changing the way Washington views our region and the Palestinian cause through the principles of the American Revolution and the US Constitution, which emphasised human rights and democracy.
If the midterm elections give the Democratic Party a majority in one chamber of Congress, or in both, they could lead to a major shift in the course of the American confrontation with Iran.
Congress, as is well known, holds the authority to declare war. A change in the balance of power could therefore restrict the president’s freedom of action and potentially bring the war to an end.
It may be going too far to predict that the impeachment proposals being discussed in many American circles could be pursued by the House of Representatives against President Trump.
I remain convinced that such an effort would not ultimately succeed because it would require an overwhelming majority in both chambers.
Nevertheless, if the powers of the president and the US administration are curtailed more broadly, and if impeachment proceedings are placed on the table, the Trump administration could be weakened if it loses congressional support.
That could push events towards a degree of de-escalation, whether in relation to the ongoing war in the Gulf or even by advancing the Palestinian file and beginning implementation of the provisions contained in the Peace Council document approved in Sharm el-Sheikh several months ago.
It could also accelerate an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese and Syrian territories.
Amid all these potential changes, and against the backdrop of shifting alliances ranging from growing anxiety within NATO to new formations and partnerships led by powers such as China and Russia, I believe that the most important prospect remains the emergence of an effective Arab alliance capable of producing a unified position with real influence over the future of the Arab world.
