WITH the swearing-in of the newly elected Knesset, Israel’s parliament, scheduled for Tuesday (November 10), Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be reduced to a caretaker premier. There is a strong likelihood that a new government under Gadi Eisenkot will be formed within six weeks. All indications suggest that Netanyahu’s 19-year political dominance may finally be drawing to a close.
Likewise, in the United States, the newly elected Senate and House of Representatives are scheduled to be sworn in on January 3 or 4, after which Donald Trump’s political dominance will come to an end, even though he himself will continue to occupy the presidency.
The impending transfer of power in both countries is being scrutinised with extraordinary attention across the international community. A climate of anticipation, speculation, and apprehension now prevails across the globe. The Muslim World, particularly West Asia, is also closely examining these developments, with considerable expectations invested in the possibility of a more favourable political environment.
However, historical experience has repeatedly shown that changes of government in these two countries seldom translate into any substantial transformation of their fundamental policy orientations. The situation bears a striking resemblance to the political contest in India between soft Hindutva and hardline Hindutva, where the struggle for power between different manifestations of the same ideological spectrum rarely produces any meaningful alteration in domestic policy.
Foreign policy may, to some extent, undergo adjustments. Nevertheless, in the countries under discussion, foreign policy — particularly its military and strategic dimensions — remains largely insulated from political transitions. For instance, when Naftali Bennett served as Israel’s prime minister for approximately 18 months after 2021, there was no discernible moderation in his government’s policy towards Palestine or the Palestinians, even though Arab political parties were part of his governing coalition and a Muslim minister also held a position in his cabinet.
Eisenkot, too, belongs to the right-wing political establishment. More significantly, he is a former military chief. This suggests that his government, too, is likely to pursue an uncompromising and hardline agenda, with military operations continuing unabated and opposition to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state remaining central to its political outlook. Even during the election campaign and subsequent negotiations to cobble together a governing coalition, statements hostile to Hamas have emerged, notwithstanding the considerable political compulsions involved. These pronouncements offer a revealing indication of his government’s likely intentions towards Gaza and Palestine as a whole.
It is entirely possible that, during his tenure, Eisenkot may introduce certain constructive changes in Israel’s domestic affairs, improve economic and civic amenities for his electorate, strengthen public security arrangements, or extend some concessions to Arab communities. However, whether such changes will have any bearing on Israel’s military posture, or whether they will result in even a marginal reduction in its military operations, remains uncertain. It would be premature to venture a definitive assessment at this stage.
Similarly, the prospects of the Republican Party, led by Donald Trump, effecting any significant recalibration of America’s foreign or military policy, despite losing its majority in the House of Representatives, appear exceedingly limited. At most, some adjustments may become possible because these elections were fought against the backdrop of the war imposed upon Iran, and the electorate registered its protest to that conflict through the ballot box. Consequently, there may be some moderation in Washington’s policy of launching direct military attacks on West Asian nations. There are also considerable grounds for hoping that the United States’ overt and unconditional support for Israel may come under greater legislative and political scrutiny.
Moreover, America’s massive financial commitment to the Russia-Ukraine war has considerably weakened its domestic economic foundations, with ordinary Americans bearing the consequences in their everyday lives. Against this backdrop, the expenditure of trillions of dollars on Israel’s war effort is increasingly regarded as an unnecessary and unsustainable burden by sections of the American electorate and political establishment.
Nevertheless, neither the Democratic Party nor the Republicans are likely to compromise on their fundamental commitment to American global supremacy or its strategic objective of exercising international dominance through the hegemony of the US dollar.
This is precisely why, during the presidency of Democrat Barack Obama, who occupied the White House from 2009 to 2017, there was no meaningful reduction in the wars engulfing West Asia. These conflicts, in several respects, became even more devastating.
Indeed, Obama’s celebrated address at the central hall of Cairo University in June 2009 had generated extraordinary expectations throughout the Muslim World. His speech was widely interpreted as an opportunity for a new beginning in relations between Washington and Muslim-majority societies. Yet, the subsequent trajectory of his administration told an altogether different story.
It was under his presidency that an additional 50,000 American troops were deployed to Afghanistan; the military intervention in Iraq was intensified, reducing much of the country to ruins while facilitating the plunder of its oil resources; and the insurgency against Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in Libya received American support, ultimately resulting in his ouster and the subsequent devastation of the Libyan state.
The civil war in Yemen and the transformation of North Africa into a veritable cauldron of armed conflict also unfolded during this period. In Syria, too, cities such as Aleppo were devastated almost overnight in the name of combating terrorism during the Obama administration, with little evidence of restraint or humanitarian consideration in the conduct of these operations.
Viewed against this entire historical backdrop, the political transitions in both countries warrant a sober and realistic assessment. At best, one may anticipate a temporary reduction in the attempts to plunge West Asia into a direct military conflagration, particularly the escalation that began following Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack.
However, there is, as yet, no discernible prospect of these countries abandoning the undeclared Cold War they continue to wage across West Asia or dismantling the economic blockades and coercive economic measures that remain integral to their regional strategy.
It is possible that Netanyahu, given his status as a former Prime Minister, the allegations of war crimes against him and the corruption charges confronting him domestically, may eventually face legal consequences that bring his political career to an ignominious end. But no one should harbour the illusion that Eisenkot, upon replacing him, will necessarily pursue a fundamentally different course of action.
Likewise, in view of the opposition confronting President Trump in both Houses of Congress, he may be compelled to make compromises on certain issues. However, to imagine that a president as impulsive and belligerent as Trump will reverse his policies and roll back his actions following what may be characterised as a humiliating defeat at the hands of Iran would be nothing more than wishful thinking.
Meanwhile, Muslims across the world are celebrating what they perceive as a historic breakthrough in American electoral politics: for the first time in the history of American democracy, a Muslim has secured a seat in the Senate, while, for the first time, seven Muslim representatives have also been elected to the US House of Representatives. These elected representatives do not appear particularly hesitant about asserting their Muslim identity, nor do they shy away from articulating their positions on issues concerning Muslims. Unlike those who maintain a culpable silence on matters affecting their community, they are prepared to express their views openly and unequivocally.
Yet, can one Muslim senator in a chamber of one hundred members and seven Muslim representatives in a House comprising 435 members genuinely influence decisions of fundamental national and strategic significance? The answer is plainly in the negative.
Furthermore, all these individuals are, above all, American citizens, and the national interests of the United States will inevitably remain among their foremost political priorities. In these circumstances, it is difficult to comprehend why the entire Muslim World should indulge in unrestrained celebration over their electoral victories.
Nevertheless, there is an important and instructive lesson that Muslim minorities across the world, particularly Muslims in India, can draw from the American electoral experience.
Wherever they reside, Muslims must stand shoulder to shoulder with all sections of society in addressing their collective grievances and hardships, irrespective of religion, community, ethnicity or race. They must actively participate in efforts to secure justice for all disadvantaged and marginalised sections of society, extending solidarity beyond the confines of their own religious or communal concerns.
It is simply not enough to remain perpetually agitated over one’s own grievances and demands, while limiting engagement with the suffering of other oppressed and deprived communities to occasional statements or merely cosmetic demonstrations of solidarity. Nor is sporadic participation in the struggles of others sufficient.
Muslims must articulate their views on all major national issues and insist on meaningful participation in the broader processes of public policymaking, while retaining and confidently expressing their own collective identity.
An exclusive preoccupation with minority-specific concerns risks isolating an entire community from the wider social and political mainstream. By contrast, when a minority raises its voice while actively participating in the collective struggles of all sections of society, that voice acquires greater legitimacy, wider resonance and, ultimately, far greater political efficacy.
For Muslims in India to secure a proportionate, dignified and meaningful share in political power, they must first become the articulate representatives of all deprived and marginalised sections of society. Alongside their Muslim identity, they must accord due importance to their national and civic identity as citizens of India.
Only then will they be able to derive any substantive lesson from the electoral victories of Muslim representatives in the United States and Israel.
In this particular context, Muslims in India must undertake a serious study of the formative years and political trajectories of individuals such as Zohran Mamdani and Abdul Rehman Mohamed El-Sayed, examining how they established themselves in American politics through grassroots public service, irrespective of the religious or communal identities of the people they served.
It is essential to understand how their sustained commitment to public welfare and their engagement with everyday grassroots concerns earned them such widespread acceptance among non-Muslim constituencies that their electoral victories became possible, largely through public recognition of their record of service.
The same principle is illustrated by the repeated electoral success of London’s Mayor, Sadiq Khan, who has secured a historic third consecutive term in office. The foundation of his success lies not merely in the impressive record of public service he established before assuming the mayoralty, but also in his determination to sustain and expand those services after becoming the mayor.
In other words, his commitment to public service was not a temporary electoral expedient, adopted merely to secure votes. Rather, it was a deeply held political principle and an enduring mission that continued unabated even after he attained the office he had sought.
In precisely the same spirit, Muslims across the world must reconnect with the authentic traditions of public service and the rich historical legacy of their forebears. For, in the ultimate analysis, service to humanity is the true cornerstone of political legitimacy and the most enduring key to electoral success.
________________
Dr Tasleem Ahmad Rahmani is president of the Muslim Political Council of India and a prominent political analyst. The views expressed here are the author’s own and Clarion India does not necessarily subscribe to them. He can be contacted at [email protected]
