Representatives from eight of nine Zionist Israeli political parties participating in an English-language election debate aired on Sunday rejected the establishment of a Palestinian state, revealing a striking degree of consensus ahead of the Oct. 27 election.
The JNS-Yad L’Olim debate, moderated by former Knesset member Dov Lipman, founder and CEO of Yad L’Olim, and JNS columnist and TV host Ruthie Blum, brought together representatives from nine parties spanning much of Israel’s political spectrum.
Participating were Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism Minister Amichai Chikli (Likud), Alex Rif (Yashar), MK Moshe Tur-Paz of Together (B’Yachad), MK Simcha Rothman (Religious Zionist Party), MK Oded Forer (Yisrael Beiteinu), MK Gilad Kariv (The Democrats), Yishai Fleisher (Otzma Yehudit), Fleur Hassan-Nahoum (Amcha Yisrael) and former MK Einat Wilf (Reservists-Economic Party).
Asked for a simple yes-or-no answer on whether they supported the establishment of a Palestinian state, Hassan-Nahoum was the most emphatic.
“It’s a hell no,” she said.
Forer said, “No, definitely not,” while Fleisher said his party would “fight it tooth and nail.”
The Religious Zionist Party’s Rothman responded, “No, no, no.” Tur-Paz of Together said: “Clearly no. The clear answer is no.”
Chikli said Likud opposed a Palestinian state in any form, while Rif also rejected the idea.
Wilf initially declined to give a yes-or-no response, arguing that the deeper issue was Palestinian rejection of Zionism.
“The only reason there is no Palestinian state is not because any right-wing party ever prevented it or any leader prevented it,” she said. “It doesn’t exist because the Arabs have never wanted a state for themselves if it has to live next to a Jewish state.”
Lipman interpreted Wilf’s response as a “no.”
The unusual degree of agreement over Palestinian statehood contrasted sharply with disagreements elsewhere in the debate, particularly over the future of Gaza, the drafting of haredim into the IDF, responsibility for the failures surrounding the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led massacre and who should lead Israel after the election.
The only representative not to reject Palestinian statehood during the debate was The Democrats’ MK Gilad Kariv, who was temporarily disconnected when the question was put to him and did not respond. Kariv has expressed support in the past for a two-state solution, arguing that Israel should ultimately agree to a demilitarized Palestinian state as part of a broader regional agreement.
Gaza after Oct. 7
The candidates broadly agreed that Hamas must not be allowed to rebuild its military capabilities but differed over how Gaza should be handled.
Hassan-Nahoum outlined a plan promoted by Amcha Yisrael leader and retired IDF Brig. Gen. Ofer Winter that would separate Gaza’s civilian population from Hamas, establish a weapons-free area and leave Israel as the sole provider of humanitarian supplies before moving militarily against the remaining terrorists.
A second stage, she said, would facilitate voluntary emigration for Gazans who want to leave.
“We have a plan and we will implement it, and that is how you win the war in Gaza,” she said.
Chikli blamed the Oct. 7 massacre on policies dating back to the Oslo Accords and Israel’s 2005 disengagement from Gaza, as well as the 2011 Gilad Shalit prisoner exchange.
“The mission is to keep the yellow line and to control Gaza and to not allow Hamas to raise his head,” he said, adding that Israel must continue eliminating Hamas commanders.
Rif accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of failing to translate Israel’s military achievements into lasting strategic change.
“We will not buy temporary quiet while Hamas prepares the next Oct. 7,” she said, calling for Hamas’s military and governing capabilities to be dismantled and for Israel to retain freedom of military action in Gaza.
Forer called for Israel to end its responsibility for supplying Gaza with electricity, water and humanitarian aid, while Fleisher advocated Israeli control and eventual resettlement of the territory.
Tur-Paz said the overriding goal must be to disarm Hamas and argued that Egypt and the United Arab Emirates should play a role in postwar Gaza rather than Qatar and Turkey.
Rothman said the challenge was not merely adopting tough policies toward Hamas but forming a governing coalition capable of carrying them out, arguing that parties dependent on political partners opposed to such policies would be unable to do so.
Kariv said the government that was in power on Oct. 7 could not be entrusted with shaping Israel’s future security policy.
“Those people led us into Oct. 7,” he said. “They cannot lead the State of Israel after what happened.”
Haredi draft takes center stage
The candidates also sparred over one of the election campaign’s most divisive domestic issues: military service for haredi men.
Forer proposed requiring every Israeli citizen to report for service from the age of 18, with the IDF selecting those it needs and others performing national service in institutions such as the police, fire service and hospitals.
“If you are not serving, you will not get anything from the state,” he said.
Tur-Paz said a Naftali Bennett-led government would cut state funding for those who refuse to serve and redirect resources to Israelis who do serve.
Hassan-Nahoum advocated a combination of incentives and sanctions, arguing that Israelis who serve should receive greater state benefits.
“Everybody in this country has to serve if they want to be full citizens, getting full rights,” she said.
Rothman and Fleisher both argued that greater haredi enlistment should be achieved through gradual social change and incentives rather than coercion.
Kariv said the gradual approach to haredi enlistment was no longer adequate after Oct. 7, while Chikli said enlistment was already rising and accused previous governments of advancing weaker legislation.
Wilf called for universal service encompassing men and women, Jews and Arabs, with those not required by the IDF performing other forms of national service.
Who should lead Israel?
The question of who should serve as prime minister exposed a sharp contrast between the two political blocs.
All four representatives of parties in the right-wing bloc—Likud, the Religious Zionist Party, Otzma Yehudit and Amcha Yisrael—said they would recommend Netanyahu for prime minister.
Chikli said Netanyahu, “obviously,” while Fleisher said Otzma Yehudit would support the Likud leader but seek to “keep him strong and to the right.” Hassan-Nahoum also backed Netanyahu as leader of the right-wing bloc, while Rothman said his party would support him while pushing the government further on settlement, judicial reform and other issues.
Opposition representatives, by contrast, were divided over whom to recommend for premier.
Rif said Yashar would recommend its leader, former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot, while Tur-Paz backed former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, leader of Together.
Forer said his preference was Yisrael Beiteinu leader Avigdor Liberman, but he added that the four Zionist opposition parties should decide after the election who should head the government.
Kariv said The Democrats would support the opposition candidate best positioned to replace Netanyahu, adding that “right now it looks like Gadi Eisenkot.”
Wilf declined to name a specific candidate, saying the Reservists-Economic Party would support whichever candidate could secure the backing of the largest number of Zionist Knesset members.
Oct. 7 inquiry
The candidates also split over how the failures surrounding the Oct. 7 massacre should be investigated.
Rif, Wilf, Kariv, Forer and Tur-Paz supported establishing a state commission of inquiry, the statutory mechanism traditionally used to investigate major national failures.
Chikli, Rothman, Fleisher and Hassan-Nahoum opposed allowing the judiciary to determine the makeup of such a commission, instead calling for a mechanism that would command broad support across the political divide.
Wilf said a state commission was the only existing investigative mechanism with sufficient legal authority.
“The fact that we’re debating it is a travesty,” she said.
Rothman countered that the judiciary should not be given a role in choosing the commission.
“The justice system in Israel is involved in security decisions. That’s why this justice system cannot be in charge of investigating itself,” he said.
He proposed a commission that would have the support of 80 Knesset members from both the coalition and opposition.
Watch the debate here.
