As Israel moves toward elections that could shape the country’s trajectory for years to come, one striking feature of the political landscape stands out: not the intensity of debate, but the absence of substantive policy discussion at its center. This void is especially evident in the emerging campaign of former prime minister Naftali Bennett.
No one doubts that Bennett is an intelligent and accomplished individual. He has succeeded in business and worked his way, impressively, through the political system. Yet his political re-entry has been framed almost entirely around opposition to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the man, rather than to his policies. While Bennett has criticized the lack of a State Commission of Inquiry and the haredi (ultra-Orthodox) draft issue, substantive policy proposals have largely been absent.
Criticism of a sitting prime minister can be legitimate and even necessary. But criticism alone is not a governing platform. Leadership begins where critique ends and responsibility begins. To date, Bennett has offered little clarity about what he would actually do if entrusted once again with power.
Rather than advancing a coherent agenda on security, the economy, housing, judicial reform, or governance, Bennett’s campaign has leaned heavily on sharp rhetoric and personal attacks. This approach may generate attention, but it does not amount to a serious roadmap for Israel’s future. A public grappling with war, economic pressure, and deep social strain deserves more than slogans and rhetorical flourishes.
That tone was on full display in early February, when Bennett mocked Netanyahu’s response to the state comptroller, likening the prime minister to “Forrest Gump.” However biting such metaphors may be, ridicule is not a substitute for strategy: It offers no answers to the complex challenges Israel faces. For someone who openly broke a major public campaign promise in the past, it is striking that attacks on character and truthfulness would be the strategy he now chooses to pursue.
Bennett’s policy ambiguity, opportunistic alliances
More revealing than the rhetoric is what remains unsaid. Bennett has yet to articulate clear positions on several of the most consequential issues confronting the country. There is no detailed proposal for post-war governance in Gaza, no articulated framework for long-term security control, and no clear vision for rebuilding deterrence while managing international pressure.
On the economic front, he has offered little guidance on tax reform, cost-of-living relief, or how to address the growing burden on Israel’s productive middle class, including the hundreds of thousands of reserve soldiers who dropped everything over the past two years to fight for their country. Similarly absent is a concrete plan for Judea and Samaria, an area that once stood at the core of his political identity.
This lack of policy definition has been accompanied by an increasing willingness to engage in ad hoc political alliances. Once regarded as a consistent figure within the national camp, Bennett now signals openness to partnerships that appear driven more by coalition arithmetic than by shared principles. Tactical pragmatism, untethered from a clearly articulated worldview, risks sliding into opportunism.
His repeated overtures toward figures such as Yair Golan underscore this concern. Golan represents an ideological outlook fundamentally at odds with Bennett’s past positions. He continues to champion a two-state solution rooted in the Oslo framework, has publicly disparaged residents of Judea and Samaria, and has made controversial statements regarding Israel’s soldiers and the role of religion in Israeli society. These views stand in sharp contrast to the values Bennett once championed, yet they no longer appear to pose a barrier to political cooperation.
This approach is not merely theoretical. Bennett has even floated the idea of appointing Golan as energy minister in a future government. The remark, delivered casually, suggested a view of governance in which ministerial portfolios are treated as bargaining chips rather than as serious responsibilities. Israel’s political history offers ample evidence of the costs of appointments driven by coalition convenience rather than merit. The Energy Ministry oversees strategic assets central to Israel’s economic strength and geopolitical standing. It is not a portfolio for improvisation.
The same standard applies across government. Finance, defense, health, and internal security are not ceremonial roles. They demand leadership grounded in knowledge, experience, and judgment. A campaign that treats these responsibilities lightly offers a preview of how its candidate would govern.
At its core, Bennett’s challenge is not stylistic but structural. A campaign defined primarily by negation leaves little room for coherent policy development. In the absence of clear principles, alliances become transactional and governance risks becoming reactive rather than strategic.
Many Israelis recognize that the country must move forward from the current government and its divisive model. They are seeking an alternative that places at its center those who work, serve, pay taxes, and shoulder shared national responsibility.
But Israel deserves better than a campaign built on negation. It deserves a leadership conversation focused on real choices: security doctrine, economic reform, governance, and national resilience. The question voters must ask is not whether Naftali Bennett can criticize Benjamin Netanyahu – we already know he can. The real question is whether he has demonstrated the clarity, competence, and governing vision required to lead a country facing historic challenges.
So far, that answer remains absent.
Marc Tobin is the managing partner of Dekel Capital Management and a resident of Beit Shemesh who made aliyah 27 years ago. An avid Zionist, he deeply cares about the future of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.
Micah Avni is an Israeli businessman, thought leader, and founder of the Israel Tomorrow initiative.