As Israel approaches its October 27 election carrying the trauma of October 7, the burden on reservists and the threat from Iran and its proxies, its aspiring leaders Gadi Eisenkot, Naftali Bennett, Yair Lapid, and Yair Golan seem tempted to present the removal of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a national vision.
As if defeating one man would rebuild the Israel Defense Forces, restore deterrence, repair public trust, unite religious and secular citizens, and answer the question that should define this election: How will the Jewish state remain secure, democratic, and strong for the next 50 years?
Opposing Netanyahu may be understandable. It is not a doctrine. Anger is not a strategy, and “anyone but Bibi” cannot organize Israel’s future. Bennett and Lapid have joined in the B’Yachad alliance. Eisenkot leads Yashar, while Golan leads the Democrats. Yet their campaigns risk being overshadowed by one emotional promise: Netanyahu must go.
Millions of Israelis still respect Netanyahu, credit him with accomplishments, or vote for Likud. They will not disappear after Election Day. They are not obstacles to democracy. They are part of Israel.
Many Americans expect the election to revolve around Gaza, Iran, Lebanon, Washington, and the Palestinian question. Israelis care about all of them, but voters are also asking: Who will serve? Who will investigate October 7? Can any coalition survive? Can leaders stop turning fellow citizens into enemies?
The demand for haredi (ultra-Orthodox) military or civilian service now crosses Left-Right boundaries. Religious Zionist families have carried a wartime burden, and many reject the claim that observant Jewish life is incompatible with an IDF uniform.
An independent state commission of inquiry is also not exclusively a left-wing cause. Hamas murdered Israelis without asking how they voted. The investigation must examine the political, military, and intelligence chain.
Israel has moved rightward on security, sovereignty, and the risks of territorial withdrawal, but that does not mean it must become less democratic. A democratic Right insists on elections, accountability, lawful institutions, shared service, and national responsibility.
Most Israelis are unlikely to support a Palestinian state under present conditions, a redivision of Jerusalem, or a withdrawal that allows Hamas or Hezbollah to rebuild. Security realism, however, cannot excuse political paralysis or permanent personal rule.
I write as an Ethiopian-Israeli American Jew, a Modern Orthodox educator, a student of Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, and a committed democratic thinker who does not believe that any individual should dominate Israeli politics indefinitely.
Netanyahu has served as prime minister for nearly two decades. During that extraordinary tenure, he should have done far more to mentor, empower, and prepare a credible generation of successors. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks taught that Moses’s greatness was not only that he led Israel out of Egypt, but that he prepared Joshua.
HEADING
Netanyahu built extraordinary political power but did not adequately build a Joshua generation. Still, his failures do not erase his achievements. His governments strengthened Israel’s economy and technological influence, deepened regional relationships, and helped produce the Abraham Accords.
He is politically intelligent, resilient, and experienced in American politics and diplomacy. Pretending he has nothing to teach is foolish, but he must be willing to teach rather than merely outlast other leaders.
Eisenkot, Bennett, and others must be humble enough to learn from him without imitating his mistakes. He can teach strategic patience, international communication, and how to understand voters whom elites often dismiss. His challengers can teach renewal, institutional restraint, and accountability.
The safest outcome may be a broad Zionist government bringing Likud together with Eisenkot, Bennett, and other leaders. Eisenkot or Bennett should consider joining forces with Likud through a governing alliance or national framework if that is required for stability.
Joining hands with Likud voters is not capitulation to Netanyahu. National unity cannot be built by excluding one of the country’s largest political communities.
Such cooperation must rest on conditions: an independent commission of inquiry; meaningful military or civilian national service for all, with narrow exemptions; competent ministers, strong democratic institutions, and a succession plan.
A unity government must present a new security doctrine. Hamas must never again govern or militarize Gaza. Hezbollah and Iran must know that rebuilding offensive capabilities will meet a decisive response. Israel must strengthen the IDF, relieve overused reservists, and accelerate defenses against drones, swarms, artificial intelligence, and autonomous weapons.
Israel should preserve its indispensable American alliance while becoming more militarily self-reliant. It must expand domestic weapons production, protect strategic reserves, and diversify supply sources. Friendship is stronger when it is not helpless dependency.
Political stalemate is not harmless. Repeated elections consume time, weaken public confidence, and delay essential decisions. Israel’s enemies use every pause to recruit, rearm, and test our divisions. Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran do not need Israel to agree with them; they need Israelis to become incapable of agreeing with one another.
Ministers should be chosen for competence, integrity, and international ability – not loyalty or tokenism. It must include women, Mizrahim, Ethiopian Israelis, Druze, immigrants, and religious and secular citizens.
Israel does not need an election organized around love or hatred of Netanyahu. It needs an election about national survival, democratic responsibility, and the future strength of the Jewish state. Netanyahu should neither be worshiped nor demonized. His achievements should be recognized, his failures investigated, and his supporters respected.
He should use his political wisdom to prepare others for leadership. Those seeking to replace him must answer a harder question than why he should leave: Why should they lead? If Eisenkot and Bennett truly place Israel above personal ambition, they should not rule out partnership with Likud.
A stable Zionist government will demand compromise from all of them. Netanyahu must be willing to teach. The next generation must be willing to learn, and then lead in its own way.
Israel cannot give its enemies the gift of prolonged division. Its leaders must build a Joshua generation and a national coalition strong enough to defend the country, renew its democracy, and unite its people.
The writer is a former New York City Supreme Court detective, an investigator and educator in conflict resolution and restorative peace, and a moral diplomacy expert. His upcoming book, Moral Diplomacy for a Broken World, is inspired by the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks.