Southern Lebanon Residents See Little Hope for Change in Israel's Approaching Election

With Israelis set to vote in a general election in a matter of weeks, many residents of southern Lebanon are closely monitoring the campaign — but few believe the outcome will alter their daily reality. Across towns and villages scarred by three years of war, the prevailing sentiment is that whoever forms Israel's next government, the military policies that have upended their lives will remain largely intact.

Hadi Nasrallah, a resident of Khiam, now owns little more than the pushcart he uses to sell fresh orange juice. His house was reduced to rubble by Israeli bombing, and his village is among dozens in southern Lebanon that remain under Israeli occupation. For him, the election is not a contest that promises relief. "Israel has territorial ambitions. It is about Greater Israel," he told Al Jazeera, arguing that talk of security is a cover for deeper expansionist aims. In his view, no winner at the ballot box will halt the destructive military approach or pull forces out of the south.

That skepticism is rooted in decades of enmity, but it has been sharpened by the past three years. What were once periodic clashes between the Israeli military and Hezbollah have escalated since 2023 into a sustained and intense war under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's leadership. Israel insists its operations target Hezbollah alone, yet its strikes have repeatedly hit civilian areas, killing at least 8,920 people and injuring 30,595 others since October 2023, according to the figures cited in the source. Nearly 6 percent of Lebanese territory along the border with Israel remains occupied — a presence Israeli officials justify in the name of security.

Netanyahu is now fighting for his political survival, but he is not the only candidate promising continued military action beyond Israel's borders. His principal challenger, Gadi Eisenkot, who leads the Yashar party and formerly served as army chief of staff, has cultivated a security-hawk image of his own. In Lebanon, Eisenkot is remembered for formulating the so-called Dahiyeh Doctrine during Israel's 2006 war with Hezbollah — a strategy that calls for overwhelming force, including against civilian infrastructure, to deter adversaries. That approach has since been applied in Israel's recent wars, most visibly in devastating aerial assaults on Beirut's southern suburbs.

Eisenkot, like Netanyahu, insists on preserving freedom of action for Israel's military. He has criticized the prime minister for yielding to US pressure and halting major operations in Beirut — there have been no significant attacks on the Lebanese capital since April. Eisenkot also argues that the military should be free to strike Hezbollah anywhere in Lebanon. At the same time, he has accused Netanyahu of running the war "blindly, arrogantly, and irresponsibly," using force without achievable political goals or a sustainable diplomatic horizon behind Israel's actions.

Despite those differences in tone and emphasis, the stated objectives of the two men are essentially identical: a demilitarized southern Lebanon, the disarmament of Hezbollah, and long-term security for residents of northern Israel. That convergence has not gone unnoticed among Lebanese who have watched the campaign unfold. Marcella Nasreddine, who lives in Beirut's southern suburbs, dismissed the notion that a change of leadership would bring a change of course. "They are all the same," she told Al Jazeera, describing what she called a consistent policy since 1948 of destruction and control. In her view, Israel's underlying aim is to control more territory, regardless of who sits in the prime minister's office.

Concerns extend beyond Lebanon's borders. In southern Syria, many people are increasingly worried about the Israeli military's push into hundreds of square kilometres of Syrian land. Israel's current leadership has signaled that its forces are not leaving, and Eisenkot does not appear inclined to rush a withdrawal. Instead, he seems to intend to use the occupation as leverage against the new Syrian government. The result is anxiety on both sides of the Lebanon-Syria border that, rather than delivering change, Israel's election could leave their situation worse.

For Ali Jarmak, a resident of the southern city of Nabatieh, the period before the vote may matter more than the vote itself. He urged observers to focus on what happens between now and election day rather than on who ultimately leads Israel. Noting that Netanyahu is not leading in the polls, Jarmak suggested the prime minister might escalate the war in Lebanon to attract more votes — a calculation that would be felt directly by communities already bearing the brunt of the conflict.

Diplomatic channels have meanwhile stalled. There have been no negotiations between Israeli and Lebanese officials since early August, with Netanyahu having delayed the diplomatic track with the Lebanese government. Israel is also refusing further withdrawals from Lebanon until Hezbollah fully disarms, while Hezbollah has rejected disarmament and threatened to confront any attempt by the Lebanese government to force it to give up its weapons.

Those intertwined positions leave little room for a breakthrough, and they help explain the resignation voiced by many in the south. The election may reshape Israel's political landscape, but for residents like Nasrallah, Nasreddine and Jarmak, the policies that have destroyed homes, displaced families and left swaths of territory occupied appear likely to outlast any single government. For now, they are watching the campaign with the same expectation they have carried through three years of war: that little, if anything, will change for them.