The media is infatuated with Gadi Eisenkot, the ‘anti-Netanyahu’. Why?

Why Western Press Champions Eisenkot as Israel’s New Hope

Wanderstayfinder.com – International journalism has developed a particular fondness for Gadi Eisenkot. The former Israeli military commander, now heading the Yashar political movement, has captured the attention of global media as his party surges ahead in polling for October’s national vote. Headlines across English-language publications have painted him as a transformative figure—a man who has personally suffered loss yet stands ready to challenge the current leadership.

British and American outlets have particularly embraced this narrative. The Times of London posed the question of whether Israel would welcome an “anti-Netanyahu” figure who endured the tragedy of losing a son in Gaza. The Daily Telegraph framed it as a personal mission: “He lost his son in Gaza. Now he’s coming for Netanyahu.” The New Yorker published an extensive profile by David Remnick examining how Netanyahu’s top general evolved into his most formidable opponent. Meanwhile, the Economist wondered aloud whether Eisenkot might offer Israel “a new chance.”

A Different Perspective from Gaza

These are reasonable questions, but perhaps the wrong audience is being asked to answer them. Instead of relying primarily on Western commentators, one might consider consulting Palestinians living in Gaza. During the most intense phase of the conflict—between October 2023 and June 2024—Eisenkot occupied a seat in Benjamin Netanyahu’s war cabinet while Israeli forces conducted what many described as a devastating military campaign across the territory.

That period saw Israeli airstrikes reduce entire apartment complexes to rubble, strike educational institutions, medical facilities, and refugee settlements, and result in the deaths of more than 30,000 Palestinians. Eisenkot ultimately stepped down from the war cabinet in 2024. However, his departure was not motivated by the staggering human cost. Rather, he cited what he considered fundamental strategic missteps by the government.

Even Remnick, writing with sympathy in the New Yorker, observed that the general—who lost his own son, Gal, during the fighting—”remains reluctant to condemn Netanyahu in any detail for the extraordinary severity and duration of the war in Gaza.”

Eisenkot’s Track Record in Gaza

Furthermore, Eisenkot possesses a documented history regarding Palestinian casualties in Gaza. While serving as Israel’s chief of staff during the “Great March of Return” demonstrations in 2018 and 2019, he directed the military’s response to large-scale Palestinian protests against the blockade of Gaza. Israeli troops, predominantly snipers, killed more than 200 Palestinians during these events, including numerous children.

“The Israeli security forces killed and maimed Palestinian demonstrators who did not pose an imminent threat,” concluded a UN commission of inquiry, adding that it “found reasonable grounds to believe that demonstrators were shot in violation of their right to life”.

If the Economist seeks to determine whether Eisenkot embodies “a new chance,” perhaps it should also consult Palestinians residing in the occupied West Bank. While Eisenkot may oppose the far-right Netanyahu government’s annexation proposals, he simultaneously resists Palestinian self-determination and the creation of an independent state.

“I have never said two states for two peoples,” he declared in a June interview, “because I understand the depth of this religious-national-social conflict, and anyone who talks about ‘peace now’ and two states doesn’t understand the conflict.”

“I very much believe in settlement in Judea and Samaria,” he continued, employing the biblical designation for the occupied West Bank.

This stance undermines claims of Eisenkot’s pragmatism and liberalism. He openly dismisses the two-state framework and enthusiastically endorses Israeli settlements—settlements that the International Court of Justice and numerous UN resolutions deem illegal under international law.

The Dahiya Doctrine Connection

Journalists might also consider residents of Beirut’s southern suburbs, where hundreds of men, women, and children perished during Israel’s 2006 military offensive against Lebanon. As commander of Israel’s Northern Command, Eisenkot became closely linked to what became known as the “Dahiya Doctrine”—a military strategy emphasizing widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure as a means of deterrence.

“What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006 will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on,” Eisenkot explained to an interviewer in 2008. “We will apply disproportionate force on it [village] and cause great damage and destruction there.”

The application of disproportionate force against civilian populations constitutes, without question, a war crime under international law.

A Moderate Villain?

Netanyahu certainly qualifies as a clear antagonist—but he often appears as a cartoon villain. The concern with Eisenkot is that he represents a different kind of antagonist: one who projects the image of moderation. While Netanyahu has become a lightning rod for criticism, thanks to his arrogance and belligerence, and his indictment at the International Criminal Court has transformed Israel into an international pariah, Eisenkot presents a more measured and reasonable appearance—a “humble soldier,” as Remnick described him.

By simply not being Netanyahu, a Prime Minister Eisenkot would neutralize many Western liberal critics of Israel and restore a sense of normalcy to international relations. Yet this normalization might come at the expense of addressing the fundamental issues that continue to drive conflict in the region. The question remains whether changing faces truly changes outcomes, or whether the policies themselves require deeper examination regardless of who occupies the highest office in Israel.