Ahead of Israel’s upcoming election on October 27, former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has articulated a critique of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s approach to security and diplomacy, particularly regarding the country’s handling of conflict and peace efforts. Bennett, currently contending against Netanyahu and Gadi Eisenkot for leadership, argues that while Netanyahu has achieved tactical military successes, he has failed to secure lasting diplomatic gains or preserve Israel’s international legitimacy.
Bennett underscores the need for a leadership style that combines military strength with active diplomacy, emphasizing humility alongside assertiveness. He supports maintaining significant security zones in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, a position largely in line with Netanyahu’s. However, Bennett contends that Israel has been diplomatically passive since the outbreak of hostilities on October 7, allowing the United States, Qatar, Turkey, and even adversaries to outmaneuver it on the diplomatic stage.
Regarding Gaza, Bennett harshly critiques Netanyahu’s policy, which he characterizes as limited to military action without accompanying diplomatic efforts. While sharing the goal of dismantling and disarming Hamas, Bennett insists this requires a blend of military and diplomatic strategies. He views the Trump administration’s Gaza policy as unworkable and imposed on Israel due to a lack of alternative plans. Bennett stresses Egypt’s central role in Gaza policy, suggesting that Israeli coalition partners’ conduct—particularly the hardline stances of Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir—has alienated Cairo and other regional actors such as Jordan, thereby undermining potential cooperation. He accuses these ministers of hindering diplomacy through their anti-Arab rhetoric.
Bennett advocates for temporarily setting aside difficult issues in negotiations to facilitate agreements that would offer Gaza’s population a stake in peace, warning that the Netanyahu government’s current approach risks further deterioration. He forecasts possible scenarios including a popular uprising or an internal Hamas coup replacing Gaza’s current leadership under Yahya Sinwar, underscoring Israel’s loss of credibility on the ground amid ongoing conflict.
On Lebanon, Bennett acknowledges the persistent threat posed by Hezbollah’s missile arsenal but offers few concrete proposals. He views the Lebanese army alongside international actors—including Egypt, the United States, France, Gulf states, and the United Nations—as crucial to diminishing Hezbollah’s influence and isolating the group from broader Lebanese society. Bennett claims personal ties with Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati but remains vague on operationalizing this vision.
Bennett’s Iran policy marks a departure from Netanyahu’s stance; he aligns closely with the Biden administration and supports the 2015 nuclear deal as a framework while urging a firm response to Iran’s regional actions. This pragmatic position contrasts with Netanyahu’s more uncompromising approach, which Bennett contends has fallen short of producing tangible results, even as Washington considers potential modifications to the agreement.
Regarding Syria, Bennett suggests a willingness to engage more directly with Moscow, promoting inclusion of Damascus and Russia in a broader Arab-Israeli diplomatic framework that Israel can leverage strategically. This contrasts with Netanyahu’s more cautious posture toward Russian involvement.
Politically, Bennett acknowledges the need to accommodate influential figures like Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, whose views complicate efforts to advance diplomacy and regional cooperation. His critical challenge remains whether he can, as prime minister, reshape Israel’s political and security apparatus to implement a significantly different strategy from Netanyahu’s. Should this occur, analysts suggest the coming 18 months could prove pivotal for Israel’s international standing and regional dynamics in the postwar period.