Southern Lebanon Watches Israel's Election With Little Hope for Change

In the southern Lebanese town of Nabatieh and across villages still bearing the scars of war, residents are following Israel's upcoming general election with keen attention but almost no expectation that the outcome will alter their daily reality. Hadi Nasrallah, a resident of Khiam, now earns his living pushing a cart to sell fresh orange juice, the only possession left to him after Israeli bombing destroyed his home. His village remains among dozens of communities in southern Lebanon that are currently occupied by Israeli forces, a situation that has persisted through a conflict that has reshaped the region over the past three years.

Israelis will head to the polls in a matter of weeks to choose a new government, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu fighting for his political survival. Yet Nasrallah, like many others interviewed by Al Jazeera, believes that even a change in leadership would not halt the military operations that have devastated his homeland. "Israel has territorial ambitions. It is about Greater Israel," he said, expressing a view widely shared among residents who see the stated security rationale as a cover for broader expansionist goals. "That is why whoever wins in the election won't stop the destructive military policies and leave southern Lebanon."

The roots of this skepticism run deep. For decades, Israel has been viewed as an enemy by many in southern Lebanon, but the periodic clashes between the Israeli military and Hezbollah escalated dramatically under Netanyahu's leadership starting in 2023, transforming into an intense and sustained war. According to figures cited by Al Jazeera, Israeli attacks have killed at least 8,920 people and injured 30,595 others since October 2023, with the military insisting it is only targeting Hezbollah even as its operations have rampantly struck civilian areas. Nearly 6 percent of Lebanese territory along the border with Israel remains occupied, all justified under the banner of security.

Netanyahu's main political challenger, Gadi Eisenkot, who leads the Yashar party and previously served as army chief of staff, has positioned himself as a security hawk rather than a voice for de-escalation. Eisenkot is well known in Lebanon for formulating the so-called Dahiyeh Doctrine during Israel's 2006 war with Hezbollah, a strategy that calls for the use of massive force, including against civilian infrastructure, as a deterrent against enemies. This approach has been deployed in Israel's recent wars, particularly in devastating aerial assaults on Beirut's southern suburbs, leaving a legacy of destruction that residents have not forgotten.

Like Netanyahu, Eisenkot insists on maintaining freedom of action for Israel's military. He has accused the prime minister of bowing to US pressure to halt operations in Beirut, noting that there have been no major attacks on the Lebanese capital since April. Eisenkot also argues that the military should be able to strike Hezbollah anywhere in Lebanon, and he has criticized Netanyahu for running the war "blindly, arrogantly, and irresponsibly," using military force without achievable political goals or a sustainable diplomatic horizon. Despite these criticisms, the stated objectives of both men remain essentially the same: a demilitarised southern Lebanon, the disarmament of Hezbollah, and long-term security for residents of northern Israel.

This convergence of positions has reinforced the belief among many Lebanese that the election will not bring meaningful relief. "They are all the same," Marcella Nasreddine, a resident of Beirut's southern suburbs, told Al Jazeera. "It has been the same policy since 1948 … destroy and control … Israel wants to control more territory." Her words reflect a profound weariness with a conflict that has displaced thousands, destroyed homes, and left communities grappling with uncertainty about whether they will ever be able to return.

The concerns extend beyond Lebanon's borders. In southern Syria, many are increasingly worried about the Israeli military's push into hundreds of square kilometres of Syrian land. The current Israeli leadership has said the military is not leaving, and Eisenkot does not appear inclined to rush a withdrawal, seemingly intending to use the occupation as leverage against the new Syrian government. This has left people on both sides of the Lebanon-Syria border fearing that instead of bringing change, Israel's upcoming elections could make their situation worse.

"I think you should focus on what happens from now until the elections rather than who will lead Israel," Ali Jarmak, a resident of Nabatieh, told Al Jazeera. He suggested that Netanyahu, who is not leading in the polls, may resort to escalating the war to gain more votes. Such a scenario would bring further suffering to southern Lebanon, where residents have already endured years of bombardment and occupation.

Diplomatic efforts have also stalled. Netanyahu has delayed the diplomatic track with the Lebanese government, and there have been no negotiations between Israeli and Lebanese officials since early August. Israel is refusing further withdrawals from Lebanon until Hezbollah fully disarms, while Hezbollah is refusing to do so and has threatened to confront any attempt by the Lebanese government to disarm it. This impasse leaves little room for compromise, and with the election approaching, the focus in southern Lebanon is not on who might win, but on what actions might be taken in the interim.

For families in Nabatieh, Khiam, and other border communities, the election is a distant political drama with direct and painful consequences. Many have lost homes, livelihoods, and loved ones, and they see no indication that a new Israeli government would fundamentally alter the military approach that has shaped their lives for years. The Dahiyeh Doctrine, once a strategy of deterrence, has become a lived reality, and the prospect of its architects gaining further power offers little comfort.

As Israelis prepare to vote, Lebanese residents are bracing for whatever comes next. Their expectations are low, not because they are indifferent to the outcome, but because experience has taught them that the policies affecting their lives transcend individual leaders. Whether Netanyahu remains in office or Eisenkot takes his place, the core demands—demilitarisation, disarmament, and security—remain unchanged, and so does the fear that southern Lebanon will continue to pay the price.

In this context, the election is less a moment of hope than a reminder of the region's entrenched dynamics. For the people of southern Lebanon, the ballot box in Israel may determine who sits in the prime minister's office, but it is unlikely to determine whether they can return to their villages, rebuild their homes, or live without the threat of further destruction. That reality, more than any campaign promise, is what shapes their view of the upcoming vote.