Israel to vote

Two fundamental questions characterize Israeli elections. The first is that it is a referendum on Benjamin Netanyahu, on his internal politics based on expansionism in the Palestinian territories and also on his foreign policy made up of variable training, which, in this last phase of his mandate, recorded the novelty of the approach to the Saudi monarchies thanks to the aversion to the common Iranian enemy. Certainly the question of containing Palestinian claims, as they are considered in Tel Aviv what should be legitimate rights, remains central in Israel's policy and is even more so if it is viewed from abroad. But the Israelis, at least some, are also sensitive to the issues of corruption, Netanyahu himself has been under investigation, and economic issues, which have been overlooked by the last governments. For this reason, around an army general, the challenger of the current prime minister, various forces have joined forces seeking change to be able to live in a nation more akin to western standards. Netanyahu was forced to seek the alliance of far-right formations and set up a right-to-left election campaign, where the first is his electoral structure, which is presented as the only one capable of ensuring the protection of the nation. On closer inspection this approach is consistent with what has been the way of governing the premier so far: contempt for the Palestinians, supremacy of the Jewish religion to the point of becoming discriminated against on nationality and therefore discredit even for Arabs with Israeli nationality; such a radical way to exercise power that cannot be completely appreciated even within its political area. This possible disagreement leads directly to the second major issue: a possible re-election of Netanyahu would mean the end of any peace process with the Palestinians. If the promise to annex a part of the West Bank and the militarization of Gaza are the logical consequence of sovereignty over the Golan, granted by an irresponsible Trump, on a practical level they mean the definitive end to the possibility of resolving the Palestinian issue in a peaceful manner. Despite the support of rulers without any knowledge of the facts on the possible consequences of this trend, like Trump himself, Bolsonaro and even Putin and in the absolute silence of the Arab states, a part of the country is aware of the danger of such a program. The fact that Netanyahu's political adversary is a general, however, denies the validity of the security arguments, which the premier opposed to the political forces that oppose his program. The military provenance of its competitor guarantees that attention to the safety of the country is guaranteed, albeit through other less extreme forms. If it is legitimate to think that an agreement with the Palestinians is the best guarantee for Israel's security, the eventual defeat of Netanyahu represents the best possible political program, even if it has never been enunciated by the forces that oppose the premier, but the just by not following him on this terrain, it can mean a possibility. In reality the two formations do not have a great political distance: both can be placed at the center, even if the premier's coalition is more to the right, but the retreat of the left, unable to intercept the changes of Israeli society, has reduced these elections to a limited choice and this could favor an abstention of voters due to the lack of political recognition in those who are destined to become the major parties. Uncertainty, therefore, is sovereign and whoever wins will win by small differences, leaving the risk of the country's ungovernability open.