Change Bloc's Proposed Policies Alienate Right-Wing Voters, Ensuring Netanyahu's Reelection
Translated & summarized from Arutz Sheva by baba
Right-wing voters are alienated by the "change bloc's" proposed policies, which include separation and dependence on external actors, inadvertently securing Prime Minister Netanyahu's reelection. Figures like Eizenkot, Liberman, Bennet, and Lapid are criticized for offering solutions that voters perceive as a return to past failures or insufficient change. While the current government has seen some right-wing aligned actions in Judea and Samaria, the opposition's platform is seen as insufficient to win over voters seeking decisive leadership and a different direction.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- The "change bloc" is alienating right-wing voters with proposals for separation and dependence, inadvertently aiding Prime Minister Netanyahu.
- Voters are frustrated with Netanyahu but reject the opposition's alternatives, seeking decisive leadership instead.
- Specific proposals by Eizenkot, Liberman, Bennet, and Lapid are seen as insufficient or a return to past failed policies.
- Actual policy shifts in Judea and Samaria under the current government appeal to some right-wing voters.
- The change bloc's failure to offer a desired future ensures Netanyahu's continued tenure, according to the analysis.
Right-wing voters may demand accountability from Prime Minister Netanyahu but still reject the alternatives offered by figures like Bennet, Eizenkot, Liberman, Lapid, and Golan. The "change bloc" is inadvertently acting as Netanyahu's insurance policy by proposing solutions that involve separation, dependence on others, and appeasement, which alienate a significant portion of the electorate.
According to the analysis, if the change bloc loses the upcoming election, it should not blame the voters for not understanding. The public is capable of recognizing the government's failures, even alongside achievements, and still deem the opposition's alternatives worse. Voters are frustrated with Netanyahu but do not wish to return to policies that led to the current situation, seeking decisive leadership rather than a return to past approaches.
The bloc is failing to connect with voters who desire more determination, initiative, and less reliance on external assurances. Their anger stems partly from the government's perceived indecisiveness. While the bloc leaders believe anti-Netanyahu sentiment guarantees their support, the article argues this is a miscalculation.
Specific policy proposals from bloc members are highlighted as problematic. Eizenkot's support for readmitting Palestinian laborers is seen as a return to a familiar, disappointing cycle. Liberman's suggestion of Jordanian police managing Palestinian areas is viewed as merely changing the identity of the enforcer while maintaining a reliance on external actors. Bennet's stance on Palestinian autonomy in Areas A and B is seen as perpetuating the Oslo Accords framework, which many right-wing voters wish to move beyond.
Lapid's proposal for Egypt to manage Gaza and Golan's openness to Abbas as a coalition partner are also presented as reasons for right-wing voter distrust. In contrast, the article notes actual policy shifts under the current government in Judea and Samaria, including operations against terror infrastructure and the approval of new settlements, which align with the desires of some right-wing voters.
The piece concludes that the change bloc's failure lies in its inability to offer a future that right-wing voters desire. By focusing on Netanyahu's failures without presenting a compelling alternative vision, they risk ensuring his continued tenure, as their proposals are perceived as more concerning than the current leadership.
Mentioned
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.
