Eisenkot places the future of Gaza at the centre of the election campaign

Tel Aviv, from our correspondent. It is time to talk about substance, and no longer just about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Election campaigns built on opposition to a particular figure do not get very far; those who have challenged Netanyahu in recent years have still not learnt their lesson, and, ahead of the 27 October vote, most of the Prime Minister’s opponents have continued to promise, above all else, to rid Israel of the Likud leader. So far, this has not proved to be a sufficient promise, but rather a framework that was too broad and needed filling; and, albeit belatedly, the first to set out the picture was former Chief of the General Staff Gadi Eisenkot, leader of the Yashar (Straight, Honest) party. He is the person most likely to beat the Prime Minister; although he is not a politician and does not speak English, his strength lies in his personal and military background. Having arrived at the border with the Gaza Strip this week, he dared to make a promise, setting a deadline – a gamble that will sooner or later come back to haunt him. He said that within eighteen months he would resolve the issues with Hamas. Eighteen months is five hundred and forty-seven days – a year and a half – almost half of his potential term as prime minister. He has been cautious, but now everyone will have a timeframe to hold up to him or throw in his face. Eisenkot went further: he will seek to resolve the issue by working with Donald Trump’s Peace Council; but if, following the rules of Trump’s plan, Hamas remains in power, then he is prepared to intervene militarily. He was the first to speak of Gaza’s future during the election campaign, the first to say aloud, in front of a microphone, what everyone sensed but no one dared say: putting an end to Hamas’s rule may once again become Israel’s responsibility. For Eisenkot, Gaza is both a national and a personal issue; he lost his son in the Strip. In that heart-wrenching moment, the former general became the prime minister’s nemesis, whilst the latter kept his own children well away from the war. 

Eisenkot speaks little and softly, in a hoarse voice; he has not learnt the art of politics, unlike so many generals before him who have sought to enter the political arena, and it seems he has not even attempted to learn it. He went to the border with Gaza to say that Hamas is reorganising itself and that Trump’s plan cannot work as long as terrorists are in control of part of the Strip, divided by the Yellow Line. On the eastern side of the line lies Israel; on the other, Hamas. Where the IDF is present, reconstruction work has begun on what has been dubbed the ‘new Rafah’, and the Israeli security services have authorised three thousand workers from Gaza to take part in the project. On the western side, however, Hamas has rebuilt its fiefdom, with fewer resources than before, but still using weapons, threats and extortion to maintain control of the territory. Hamas monitors what enters the Strip, imposes taxes, decides what must be paid in cash and how much, and often – as happened this week with the entry of lorries from Egypt – threats risk derailing coordination with Israel. For every lorry wishing to enter Gaza, according to COGAT – the Israeli military body that oversees the entry of humanitarian aid into the Strip – and also according to the Sheheiber trade union, Hamas demands 10,000 shekels (3,000 euros), and anyone who refuses to pay is arrested. Nothing has changed in the area controlled by the terrorists, where the Peace Council is unable to enter, the Palestinian government of experts is unable to take office, and the security forces are unable to replace the militiamen. Eisenkot has brought the issue back to the fore, reminding us that the war is not over.

For the Israelis, the return of the hostages and the ceasefire in Gaza are a success for the US administration, not for the Prime Minister, who responded to Eisenkot’s promise with a provocation: “And how do you intend to destroy Hamas without the permission of your partners Mansour Abbas and Ahmad Tibi?”. Netanyahu accuses Eisenkot of wanting to form a coalition with the Arab parties, whilst his election pledge centres entirely on the guarantee of a government without Arabs. The maths of the polls currently shows that neither bloc – whether religious or not – will manage to secure a majority. In the absence of common ground – for example, there is a lack of clarity on how to deal with the settlers who yesterday beat up Palestinians and an American journalist in the West Bank – unexpected and risky coalitions will be necessary: governments with no guarantee of survival, religious parties with secular ones, the right with the left. Everyone is shouting at each other about everything, and even the opposition, which seemed like a united front, is showing cracks: Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the Israel Beitenu party (Israel is Our Home) and an idol amongst most of the Russian-speaking population, has accused Eisenkot of plotting to form a government with Netanyahu. For some, this would be a betrayal; for others, a necessary sacrifice. Israeli electoral history shows that anyone who agrees to sit down with Netanyahu after having challenged – and perhaps even defeated – him ends up being crushed by the Prime Minister’s cunning. Everyone cites one example: Benny Gantz, also a general, also a former Chief of the General Staff, and also unaccustomed to the practicalities of politics. There is, however, a small but curious difference: among Gantz’s political nemeses is not only Bibi, but also Eisenkot, the silent one.