‘Gaza’s suffering has become campaign fodder’: Palestinians fear the worst from Israel election

Palestinians in Gaza are following Israel’s election because Israeli governments control decisions that directly affect the territory. Those decisions include military operations, restrictions on food and humanitarian aid, and the conditions under which displaced people might return. Gaza has been largely absent from the campaign, even as nearly a million displaced people face shortages and strikes.

Both main blocs say defeating Hamas is their priority. Neither Benjamin Netanyahu nor Gadi Eisenkot has offered a clear plan for Gaza afterward. Eisenkot promises to restore Israel’s international standing, while Netanyahu highlights military operations. For Palestinians, the difference may seem limited because both support Donald Trump’s controversial peace plan and ending Hamas rule.

Many Gazans expect little change after voting. Haneen Hamdouna said past hopes for a better government often ended in worse conditions. Residents fear candidates will compete over toughness toward Gaza, while food, water, safety and medical care remain urgent concerns.

Hamas is a Palestinian political and armed movement, and the article describes it as the ruling force in Gaza. The article does not give a fuller organisational history. Israel’s two main political blocs present defeating Hamas as their central objective, linking that goal to the 7 October attacks and the trauma inflicted on Israeli society.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right coalition and Gadi Eisenkot’s opposition Yashar party both vow to end Hamas rule. Neither has explained clearly who would govern Gaza afterward. Their shared focus keeps attention on military victory rather than on the territory’s humanitarian collapse, including destroyed homes, shortages and mass displacement.

For Israel, Hamas is framed as a security threat requiring continued military pressure. For Gaza’s civilians, that policy has meant repeated strikes and worsening living conditions. The article shows little confidence that removing Hamas alone would produce safety, reconstruction or political change, especially without a concrete future plan.

The article describes destruction on an enormous scale. It says nearly 75,000 people have been killed and nearly a million Palestinians have been displaced. Those displaced people face dire sanitation, water shortages and the continuing threat of Israeli strikes. The figures show that Gaza’s crisis is not limited to a battlefield; it has reshaped daily civilian life.

Homes and infrastructure have been widely destroyed. The article describes entire cities as wastelands, with neighbourhoods reduced to shattered concrete and bomb craters. It also says homes, roads and other infrastructure have been damaged or destroyed, making ordinary activities such as education, medical care and finding shelter extremely difficult.

The immediate result is a population focused on survival rather than politics. Families struggle to find food, water and healthcare, while many remain in tents or other temporary shelter. With destruction continuing and no clear reconstruction plan from the leading Israeli candidates, displaced people see little reason to expect a quick return to normal life.

A harder-line election result could make Gaza’s humanitarian crisis worse if it brings more military operations or tighter restrictions. The article does not predict a specific policy, but residents fear candidates may use Gaza to prove their toughness. That could affect whether food, commercial goods and humanitarian aid enter the territory.

The warning signs are already visible. Commercial deliveries have reportedly been suspended for about a week. Flour costs more than three times its previous price, while humanitarian aid is dwindling. Residents fear renewed hunger, and some delay major life events because they worry that renewed fighting could force them to flee again.

Safety could deteriorate alongside supplies. Karim Mareesh described a friend postponing his son’s wedding because a far-right government might win another term and restart the war. Families could lose tents, belongings and aid access while facing further displacement. The article offers no clear promise that either leading bloc would change this trajectory.

Benjamin Netanyahu is associated in the article with Israel’s far-right coalition and its emphasis on military operations. Gadi Eisenkot is a former military chief whose opposition Yashar party is leading Netanyahu’s Likud in the polls. Eisenkot says he would restore Israel’s international standing after three years of war, giving him a different public emphasis.

Their positions on Gaza, however, overlap substantially. Both say Hamas must be defeated, both support Donald Trump’s controversial peace plan, and neither has presented a clear plan for Gaza’s future. Eisenkot’s personal history also complicates any image of moderation: his son and two nephews were killed fighting in Gaza, and he later championed the Dahiya doctrine.

The article therefore separates political image from policy. Eisenkot may speak more about international legitimacy, but he is explicitly described as no dove. Palestinians in Gaza expect little difference, fearing that attacks and Palestinian suffering will remain tools in Israel’s election competition.

The Dahiya doctrine is a military approach that advocates overwhelming force against civilian areas where militants operate. The article says Gadi Eisenkot championed it after serving as a senior commander during Israel’s 2006 war with Hezbollah. It does not provide a full account of how the doctrine operated in Lebanon.

Its importance lies in the way force is applied around civilian populations. Critics say the strategy was later used in Gaza, where attacks caused widespread destruction. They argue that the scale of damage amounts to war crimes. The doctrine therefore connects a military theory about pressure on militant areas with the destruction of civilian homes and infrastructure.

In Gaza, the consequences described are severe: neighbourhoods became wastelands, families were displaced and basic services collapsed. The article does not establish every operation’s legal outcome, but it shows how overwhelming-force strategies can intensify civilian suffering. That record shapes Palestinian fears about another government and another round of fighting.

Election campaigns can make military policy a measure of political strength. In this campaign, both major blocs focus on defeating Hamas, while the humanitarian catastrophe receives little attention. Candidates can compete over toughness, presenting attacks or continued pressure as proof of security leadership. Gaza’s suffering then becomes campaign fodder rather than a central policy problem.

The article gives a clear example. The Arab-led Joint List aired drone footage of Gaza’s ruins and accused other parties of treating mass death and destruction as normal. Meanwhile, Netanyahu highlights military operations, and Eisenkot also promises to defeat Hamas. Their shared language leaves little public space for discussing civilian protection or reconstruction.

International humanitarian law, as a general principle, requires parties to distinguish civilians from fighters, avoid disproportionate attacks and take precautions. Humanitarian principles also require aid and civilian survival to be protected. The article does not decide legal responsibility, but says critics argue the destruction in Gaza amounts to war crimes.