Almost every major party in this election says there will be no Palestinian state, and almost all of them say Hamas can't go on ruling Gaza.I1Yashar 20Likud 5 Listen to them for a week and you'd think the country agrees on security.
I don't think it does. They agree on what they're against. Ask what comes after Hamas, or what the West Bank looks like in ten years, and the answers split wide open, or stop.
The positions come from what each party published. Where Ben Greenberg gives his own view, it is marked as his view, as it is on screen.
This is Close Read, the third of five issue episodes before the election. The major parties according to the latest polls, side by side, and I'll mark when I'm giving my own view.
Today is security. It's the widest issue there is, so I'll stay on the two questions where the parties sort most clearly: Gaza after Hamas, and a Palestinian state and the West Bank.
The map
First, where things stand. The ceasefire in Gaza began on October 10, 2025.I7 Israeli forces sit behind what's called the yellow line, inside the Strip, and the Board of Peace that President Trump set up says they'll pull back only once Hamas has fully disarmed.I8 Talks on disarmament and reconstruction have been stuck for months.I7 A committee of Palestinian technocrats meant to run civilian life was still working from Cairo this summer.I7
Here's where the thirteen parties land, in four groups.
The first group wants Israeli control of the land: Likud, Religious Zionism-Zehut, Otzma Yehudit, the Reservists and Amcha Yisrael. All five oppose a Palestinian state.Likud 4Religious Zionism-Zehut 11I1The Reservists and the Economic Party 2 Four of them have a plan for what they call "voluntary emigration" from Gaza.Otzma Yehudit 4The Reservists and the Economic Party 2Amcha Yisrael 1Religious Zionism-Zehut 1 Likud doesn't; its Gaza line is that Netanyahu will "not allow reconstruction in any part of Gaza before Gaza is disarmed."I4
The second group rejects a Palestinian state but doesn't call for sovereignty, and wants someone else running Gaza: Yashar, B'Yachad and Yisrael Beiteinu.Yashar 20I1Yisrael Beiteinu 1 Eisenkot promised last Thursday that within 18 months of his taking office, "Hamas will no longer rule the Gaza Strip."I2 B'Yachad says Israel won't move "a millimeter from the yellow line" until Hamas disarms, and has "no interest in running Gaza."B'Yachad 3 Yisrael Beiteinu would hand the Strip to "an agreed international body."Yisrael Beiteinu 1
The third group leaves room for separation or a state: the Democrats, Ra'am and the Joint List. The Democrats would stop what they call annexation.The Democrats 3 Ra'am's plan has a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines.Ra'am 1 Jabareen said on October 13 that the Joint List's plan is "a Palestinian state within the 67 borders."I6
And two parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism, have published nothing on this.Shas 18
Same words, different meanings
Start with the phrase everyone uses: no Palestinian state. At a JNS debate on October 11, eight of the nine party representatives on stage said no.I1 B'Yachad's said "Clearly no." Amcha Yisrael's said "It's a hell no."I1
Ben Greenberg's view Same answer, very different meanings. For Zehut, no state means Israeli sovereignty over the whole West Bank. For Yisrael Beiteinu, it means Israel keeps Area C and Jordan runs the Palestinian cities. For Yashar, as far as I can tell, it means keeping things roughly as they are and running them better. Those are three different countries in ten years, and on a debate stage they sound identical.
Zehut spells its version out: "full Israeli sovereignty" in what it calls Judea and Samaria, and Arab residents choosing between "a generous emigration package," permanent residency, or citizenship after proving loyalty.Religious Zionism-Zehut 1 Liberman wrote that Israel should keep absolute control of Area C, have Jordan administer Areas A and B, and dismantle the Palestinian Authority.Yisrael Beiteinu 17 Eisenkot told the Jerusalem Post the Civil Administration would go back under military coordination, with administrative orders against "those who riot and harm the settlement enterprise."Yashar 22
Then there's sovereignty itself. Likud's website calls for "strengthening settlement and sovereignty in all parts of the land," and doesn't define the word.Likud 1 The Reservists say "sovereignty through deeds," and what they list under it is more settlement; the platform doesn't propose a law.The Reservists and the Economic Party 2 Otzma Yehudit says Areas A and B would be "exactly like Area C."Otzma Yehudit 11
Ben Greenberg's view Here's what bothers me. Likud is the party most likely to be in a position to act on this word, and it's the one that says least about what it means. Annex the settlements? Area C? Everything? With what status for the Palestinians who live there? Zehut, whatever you think of its answer, has given one. Likud hasn't.
"End Hamas rule" works the same way. Netanyahu, Eisenkot, Bennett and the Democrats all say it.I4I2B'Yachad 3The Democrats 3 Ra'am's plan gets there by a different road: a full Israeli withdrawal, Arab and Islamic security forces, and a new Palestinian state that disarms the factions.Ra'am 1
Who runs Gaza
Ben Greenberg's view The biggest gap in this whole issue is one question: who runs Gaza the day after Hamas stops? I looked for an answer in every platform, and almost nobody names a body that exists.
Ben Greenberg's view B'Yachad says Egypt in, Qatar and Turkey out. Fine, but Egypt is a name until Egypt agrees, and I haven't seen it sign up. Yisrael Beiteinu's "agreed international body" doesn't exist yet. Eisenkot's eighteen months is a deadline you can hold him to, and I respect that he set one, but he says the plan itself gets drawn up after he takes office.I3 The one body that does exist, the technocratic committee, was still sitting in Cairo this summer.I7 If nobody else shows up, Israel ends up running Gaza by default, which is the one outcome almost every party says it doesn't want.
Ben Greenberg's view Likud's condition deserves a fair hearing. Rebuild before disarmament and you may be rebuilding Hamas. That's a serious argument. But Hamas hasn't disarmed in a year of ceasefire. If that holds, the condition means two million people stay in ruins and Israeli troops stay on the line with no end date. Netanyahu said Israel agreed to an Emirati enclave next to its security zone.I4 That's a pilot for one corner, and there's nothing yet for the rest of the Strip.
Ben Greenberg's view Then the emigration plans. The people behind them say Gazans should be free to leave a ruined place, and Otzma Yehudit's plan does try to answer the hard part: it caps the numbers at the places other countries sign for, and it says no one leaves without consent.Otzma Yehudit 4 I'll give it that. But everything rests on that cap, and I haven't seen a country commit to taking people at anything like this scale. And "voluntary" means something different when the alternative is a Strip nobody is allowed to rebuild. Zehut doesn't use the soft word. For Gaza, its platform says "conquest, expulsion and settlement."Religious Zionism-Zehut 1
The end state
Ben Greenberg's view On the West Bank, most of the parties have told us what they won't do and very little about what they will. "No Palestinian state" is an answer, and it leaves open what happens to the roughly three million Palestinians who live there. The parties with an end state you can read and argue with are at the edges, Zehut on one side and Ra'am on the other.
Ben Greenberg's view I think both would run into serious trouble as written. Zehut's plan asks the world to accept annexation and asks millions of people to accept a status they never chose. Ra'am's plan is the most detailed on the table, and I'll say that plainly. But it asks Israel to withdraw first and trust a new state to disarm Hamas afterward, and after October 7 I don't see how you get Israelis to accept that order without a much stronger answer on enforcement.
The Democrats' 2025 founding document calls for "full demilitarization of the future Palestinian state."The Democrats 28 Their 2026 plan talks about "a responsible diplomatic move" and drops the word state.The Democrats 3
Ben Greenberg's view I can guess why, and it's a campaign choice I understand. But it means the one Zionist party that had a written answer on the end state made it vaguer this year.
Iran, where they agree
On Iran, the agreement is close to total. Netanyahu said Sunday his goal is to bring the regime down, alone if he has to.I4 B'Yachad wants to speed the regime's collapse, Yisrael Beiteinu wants the Mossad focused on it, the Reservists say "the mission is not finished," and the Democrats want to prevent a bomb through the US and regional alliances.B'Yachad 3Yisrael Beiteinu 10The Reservists and the Economic Party 2The Democrats 3 On Lebanon, most of them want Hezbollah disarmed, and they differ on whether Israel or an international force does it.The Reservists and the Economic Party 2The Democrats 3Likud 7
Ben Greenberg's view So with the goal shared, the argument on Iran comes down to who you'd trust to work with Washington. Netanyahu said a hostile American president could take office in two years.I5 I'd take that seriously, and I'd ask every party, including his, what Israel's plan is if that happens.
The silence
Shas and United Torah Judaism haven't published a word on Gaza or the Palestinians. The one line I found from Shas is Deri calling Liberman's Jordan idea "Disengagement 2."Shas 18
Ben Greenberg's view That's a reaction to someone else's plan, and it's all I found. Through a war on several fronts, two parties asking for your vote have nothing written on the war.
Close
Ben Greenberg's view There's real common ground here. Nobody major wants to go back to October 6, and almost everyone agrees Hamas can't keep its guns and its government. So if you get the chance to ask a candidate about security before Tuesday, skip the question of whether they're against a Palestinian state or against Hamas. Ask what Gaza and the West Bank look like in two years: who governs them, who pays for it, and who keeps them secure. A party that can answer all three has a plan. Most of them have answered one.
On Sunday, the courts and governance.
Every source I used is linked in the description. The Close Read is free to watch, and if you'd like to support it, you'll find me at patreon.com/TheCloseRead, linked in the description.
Sources
New sources for this episode. A party's own sources are linked by name, to the list on that party's episode page.
- I1
- I2
- I3
- I4
- I5
- I6
- I7
- I8
- I9|
Transcript
The words as spoken in the episode, from its captions. Select a time to listen from there.
Full transcript
Intro
Almost every major party in this election says there will be no Palestinian state, and almost all of them say that Hamas cannot go on ruling Gaza. Listen to them for a week, and you think the country agrees on security, but I don't think it does. They agree on what they're against. Ask what comes after Hamas, or what the West Bank, Judea, and Samaria look like in 10 years, and the answer is split wide open, or they stop entirely. This is Close Read, the third of five issue episodes before the election. The major parties, according to the latest polls, side by side, and I'll mark when I'm giving my own view. Today, we're going to talk about security. It's the widest issue there is, so I'll stay on the two questions where the parties sort most clearly.
Gaza, after Hamas, and a Palestinian state, and the West Bank, Judea, Samaria. First, where things stand. The ceasefire in Gaza began on October 10th, 2025.
The map
Israeli forces sit behind what's called the Yellow Line, inside the Strip. And the Board of Peace that President Trump sets up says they'll pull back only once Hamas has fully disarmed. Talks on disarmament and reconstruction have been stuck for months. A committee of Palestinian technocrats meant to run civilian life was still working from Cairo this summer. And here's where the 13 parties land on this topic, in four groups. The first group wants Israeli control of the land. Likud, Religious Zionism, Zehut, Otzma, Yehudit, the Reservists, and Amcha Yisrael. All five oppose a Palestinian state. Four of them have a plan for what they call voluntary emigration from Gaza.
Likud doesn't. Its Gaza line is that Netanyahu will not allow reconstruction in any part of Gaza before Gaza is disarmed. That's a quote. The second group also rejects a Palestinian state, but doesn't call for sovereignty and wants someone else running Gaza. Yashar, Beyachad, and Yisrael Beiteinu. Eisenkot from Yashar promised last Thursday that within 18 months of his taking office, Hamas will no longer rule the Gaza Strip. Beyachad says Israel won't move a millimeter from the yellow line until Hamas disarms, and has no interest in running Gaza. Yisrael Beiteinu would hand the Strip to an agreed international body. The third group leaves room for separation or for an eventual state.
The Democrats, Raam, and the Joint List. The Democrats would stop what they call annexation. Rahm's plan has a Palestinian state on the 1967 lines. Jabarin said on October 13th that the Joint List plan is, quote, a Palestinian state within the 67 borders, end quote. And two parties, Shas and United Torah Judaism, have published nothing on this. Let's start with the phrase that everyone uses. No Palestinian state.
Same words, different meanings
At a JNS debate on October 11th, eight of the nine party representatives on stage said no. Beyachad said clearly no. Amcha Yisrael said it's a hell no. Same answer. Very different meanings. For Zehut, no state means Israeli sovereignty over the whole West Bank, Judea, Samaria. For Yisrael Beiteinu, it means Israel keeping Area C and Jordan runs the Palestinian cities. For Yashar, as far as I can tell, it means keeping things roughly as they are and running them better. Those are three different countries in 10 years. And on a debate stage, they sound, in the words, identical. Zehut spells its vision out, quote, full Israeli sovereignty, end quote, in what it calls, and what we, many of us call, Judea, Samaria, or the West Bank.
And Arab residents choosing between a generous emigration package, quote, unquote, permanent residency, or citizenship after proving loyalty. Lieberman wrote that Israel should keep absolute control of Area C, have Jordan administer areas A and B, and dismantle the Palestinian Authority. Eisenkot told the Jerusalem Post the civil administration would go back under military coronation, with administrative orders against, quote, those who riot and harm the settlement's enterprise, end quote. Then there's sovereignty itself. Likud's website calls for, quote, strengthening settlement and sovereignty in all parts of the land, end quote, but doesn't define the word. The reservists say sovereignty through deeds, quote, and what they list under it is more settlement. The platform doesn't propose a law. Otsma Yehudit says Area A and B would be, quote, exactly like Area C.
Now, here's what bothers me. Likud is the party most likely to be in a position to act on this word. And it's the one that says least about what it means. It is the governing coalition right now until at least the election is over. Annex the settlements? Area C? Everything? With what status for the Palestinians who live there? Zehut, whatever you think of its answer, at least it has an answer. You may not agree with it, but Likud doesn't have an answer. End Hamas rule as a quote, as a statement, works the same way. Netanyahu, Eisenkot, Bennett, the Democrats, from party to party, they all say it. Rahm's plan gets there by a different road. A full Israeli withdrawal, Arab and Islamic security forces, and a new Palestinian state that disarms the factions.
The biggest gap in this whole issue is one question.
Who runs Gaza
Who runs Gaza the day after Hamas stops? I looked for an answer in every platform. And almost nobody names a body that exists. Beyachad says Egypt in, Qatar and Turkey out. Fine. But Egypt is only a name until Egypt agrees. And I haven't seen it sign up yet. Yisrael Beiteinu's quote, agreed international body, end quote, doesn't exist yet. Eisenkot's 18 months is a deadline that I guess you can hold him to. And I definitely respect that he sets one, but he says the plan itself gets drawn up after he takes office. The one body that does exist, the technocratic committee, was still sitting in Cairo this summer.
If nobody else shows up, Israel, we, the country, ends up running Gaza by default. Which is the one outcome almost every party says it doesn't want. Now, Likud's condition deserves a fair hearing. Rebuild before disarmament and you may be rebuilding Hamas. That's a very serious argument. But Hamas has not disarmed in a year of ceasefire. If that holds, the conditions mean two million people stay in the current conditions of Gaza and Israeli troops stay on the line with no end date. Netanyahu said Israel agreed to an Emirati enclave next to its security zone.
That's a pilot for one corner. And that's nothing yet for the rest of the strip. Then we need to talk about the emigration plans. The people behind them say Gazans should be free to leave a ruined place. And Otzma Yehudit Adit's plan does try to answer the hard part. It caps the numbers at the places other countries sign for. And it says that no one leaves without consent. That's something you have to give it to them. But everything rests on that cap. And I haven't seen a country commit to taking people at anything like this scale. And the word voluntary, which comes up a lot, means something different when the alternative is a strip that nobody is allowed to rebuild.
Zehut doesn't use the software. On the West Bank, most of the parties have
The end state
told us what they won't do, and very little about what they will. No Palestinian state is an answer, but it leaves open what happens to the roughly 3 million Arabs who live there. The parties with an end state you can read and argue about are at the edges. Zehut on one side and Raam on the other. I think both have run into serious trouble as they're currently written. Zehut's plan asks the world to accept annexation, asks millions of people to accept a status they never chose. Rahm's plan is the most detailed on the table, and I'll say that plainly. But it asks Israel to withdraw first and trust a new state to disarm Hamas afterward. And after October 7th, I don't see how you get any of us in a consensus in Israel to accept that order without at least a much stronger answer on enforcement.
The Democrats' 2025 founding document calls for, quote, a full demilitarization of the future Palestinian state. Their 2026 plan talks about a responsible diplomatic move, and it drops the word state entirely from this election. Now, I can guess why. And it's definitely a campaign choice that I understand. But it means that the one Zionist party that had a written answer on the end state made it vaguer this year. On Iran, the agreement is close to total. Netanyahu said Sunday his goal is to bring
Iran, where they agree
the regime down, alone if he has to. Beyachad wants to speed the regime's collapse. Yisrael Beiteinu wants the Mossad focused on it. And reservists say the mission is not finished. And the Democrats want to prevent a bomb through the U.S. and regional alliances. On Lebanon, most of them want Hezbollah disarmed. And they differ on whether Israel or an international force does it. So with the goal shared, the argument on Iran comes down to who you trust to work with Washington. Because that's ultimately what we're talking about here. Netanyahu said a hostile American president could take office in the next two years. And I think all of us need to take that seriously. And I'd ask every party, including his, what Israel's plan is if that happens. Shas and United Torah Judaism haven't published a word on Gaza or the Palestinians.
The silence
The one line I found from Shas is Aryeh Dery, the head of the party, calling Lieberman's Jordan idea, quote, disengagement number two, end quote. Now, that's a reaction to someone else's plan. And it's all I found. Through a war on several fronts, two parties asking for your vote have written nothing. Have written nothing on the war. Now, there's real common ground here. Nobody major wants to go back to the version
Close
of Israel of October 6. And almost everyone agrees Hamas can't keep its guns and its government. So if you get the chance to ask a candidate about security for Tuesday, skip the question of whether they're against the Palestinian state or against Hamas. Ask what Gaza and the West Bank, Judea, Samaria look like in two years. Who governs them? Who pays for it? And who keeps them secure? A party that can answer all three has a plan. Most of them have answered one. The next episode in this series, this five-part series, we're going to discuss the courts and governance. Every source I use is linked in the description. The Close Read is free to watch and free to listen. And if you'd like to support this project, you can find me on Patreon at patreon.com slash The Close Read, linked in the description.
