A Moment of Truth: Israel’s Momentous Election

An observation on democracy, Zionism, and the future of the Israeli-American alliance

On October 27, Israelis will go to the polls to elect the members of their country’s twenty-sixth Knesset. It will be the first national election since the Hamas massacre three years ago, and the wars that followed. The stakes could scarcely be higher. 

I would argue that this election could prove to be the most consequential in the entire seventy-eight-year history of Israel as a sovereign state.

Not because Israel’s existence is in question. Not because the Jewish people’s right to national self-determination is up for a vote. And certainly not because the country can afford to lower its guard in a region where its security remains a matter of existential importance.

Rather, this election presents Israel with an opportunity to reconsider the direction in which it is headed, the principles by which it governs itself, and the kind of country it aspires to become.

For me, a non-Jewish American who fiercely believes in democracy and in representative government, the stakes of Israel’s forthcoming election are profoundly personal.

I believe in Israel. I believe in the Jewish people’s right to their ancestral homeland, in the legitimacy of Zionism, and in the extraordinary historical achievement represented by the establishment of a sovereign Jewish state in 1948. I believe, too, that the promise of Israel is considerably greater than the policies of any one government, however powerful or entrenched that government might become. That is precisely why I cannot remain indifferent to the country’s present political circumstances.

If ever there were a time for Israel to be true to what she said on paper, it is now.

Israel’s Declaration of Independence proclaimed the establishment of a Jewish state while promising equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants, irrespective of religion, race, or sex. It also pledged freedom of religion, conscience, language, education, and culture. These were not incidental words. They were commitments made at the birth of a nation, declarations of the kind of society Israel aspired to build. How Israel lives up to those commitments is a question that transcends political parties, personalities, and electoral cycles.

A democratic state must be judged not merely by the existence of elections, but by the strength of its institutions, the independence of its judiciary, the accountability of its leaders, the protection of its minorities, and its willingness to recognize the dignity and rights of people who do not share the governing majority’s political or religious convictions.

Israel’s coming election will test those principles.

The outgoing government under Benjamin Netanyahu has pursued a deeply contentious agenda, including efforts to restructure the judiciary and alter the balance of power between the executive and the courts. Those efforts have generated enormous domestic opposition and raised fundamental questions about the resilience of Israeli democracy.

Netanyahu’s coalition has also included far-right and ultra-Orthodox parties whose positions on religion, national identity, Palestinian self-determination, and the role of the state have become central to the national debate.

I believe Israel deserves a government that charts a different course.

I want to see an Israel that embraces the high road of progressive democracy: a country confident enough in its own identity to protect the rights of those who disagree with its government; strong enough to defend itself without treating military power as a substitute for political wisdom; and secure enough in its Jewish character to extend equal civic dignity to its non-Jewish citizens.

This is not a demand that Israel abandon its identity. It is a demand that Israel live up to its democratic aspirations.

Nor do I believe that Israel’s redemption requires the abandonment of Zionism. On the contrary, I believe that a more democratic, more accountable, and more representative Israel would demonstrate the enduring possibilities of the Zionist project.

Zionism, at its fundamental level, is the movement affirming the Jewish people’s right to national self-determination in their ancestral homeland. It is not synonymous with every policy enacted by an Israeli government, any more than American patriotism requires an American to defend every decision made by the White House. And it is certainly not synonymous with white supremacy, Nazism, or the denial of another people’s humanity.

The indiscriminate application of those labels to Zionism obscures the historical meaning of Jewish national self-determination and makes constructive discussion of Israel’s actual policies all the more difficult. Criticism of Israeli governments is legitimate and necessary. So is a serious examination of the conditions under which Israelis and Palestinians can finally achieve a more durable peace.

What I reject is the proposition that the Jewish people’s national aspirations are inherently illegitimate.

One need not endorse Netanyahu to be a Zionist. One need not rationalize his policies to believe Israel has a right to exist. And one need not excuse abuses of power to recognize that Jewish self-determination remains a legitimate national aspiration. Indeed, I would argue that we Zionists have a particular responsibility to hold the Israeli government under Prime Minister Netanyahu accountable.

I am increasingly immersing myself in Israeli politics and policy because I believe the country’s potential is worth taking seriously. My interest is not merely in who wins an election or which coalition assembles a parliamentary majority. I want to understand the decisions that will shape Israel’s democratic institutions, its security doctrine, its relationship with its Arab citizens, its treatment of Palestinians, and its place in the international community.

The question is not simply whether Israel can change. It is whether its political leadership will have the courage to undertake the changes that its own democratic commitments demand.

Israel cannot afford to confuse military strength with political infallibility.

Let me be clear: Israel cannot afford to demilitarize. Its security requirements are very real, and the October 7 massacre demonstrated with devastating clarity the consequences of catastrophic failures in national defense. Any serious discussion of Israel’s future must account for the threats posed by Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and other hostile actors.

The United States has provided Israel with tens of billions of dollars’ worth of military aid for decades, reflecting a strategic partnership grounded in shared interests and a longstanding commitment to Israeli security. But the existence of that assistance does not exempt Israel from responsibility for the manner in which it exercises its military power.

How Israel defends itself matters.

The distinction between legitimate self-defense and the abuse of power is not a distinction that can be dismissed as a luxury of comfortable observers thousands of miles away. It is a question of national strategy, international law, moral responsibility, and the kind of political culture a country cultivates within its own borders.

Israel must be able to defend its citizens. Its government must also be accountable for its decisions, including decisions involving the use of force. Those principles are not mutually exclusive.

Nor is criticism of Netanyahu a rejection of Israel. Many Zionists, including people like myself who remain deeply committed to Israel’s security and continued existence, have criticized his leadership and the policies of his governing coalition. Their criticisms concern the direction of the country, the conduct of its leaders, and the damage that domestic political polarization and controversial government policies can inflict on Israel’s standing abroad.

I share the conviction that no leader should be placed above accountability. I do not defend abuses of power anywhere in the world. I will not make an exception for Israel, just as I will not make an exception for the United States. That brings me to another relationship whose future matters enormously to me: the Israeli-American alliance. I want that relationship not merely to survive this dark moment, but to emerge from it stronger.

The United States and Israel have a substantial history of security cooperation, diplomatic engagement, technological partnership, and shared strategic interests. Their relationship has also endured disagreements over settlements, military operations, diplomacy, and the appropriate course of action in the Middle East.

A healthy alliance must be capable of accommodating such disagreements without losing sight of its underlying purposes.

But sustaining that alliance requires more than historical sentiment or an assumption that the two countries will always agree. It requires trust, political maturity, and a willingness to recognize that an ally’s interests are not necessarily identical to those of its current government.

American support for Israel should not be understood as an unconditional endorsement of Netanyahu. Likewise, opposition to Netanyahu should not become an excuse to abandon the security of the Israeli people or the legitimacy of their state.

The two countries have an opportunity to demonstrate that a durable alliance can survive changes in political leadership, candid disagreements over policy, and difficult debates about the meaning of democratic values. For me, that is a relationship worth preserving. And it is one worth strengthening.

Ultimately, the question before Israeli voters is larger than the political fortunes of any one prime minister. It concerns the kind of state Israel will be in the years ahead, and whether its democratic institutions can provide the foundation for a more secure, more representative, and more accountable society.

An election cannot solve every problem overnight. A change of government, even a substantial one, cannot by itself resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, repair every institutional fracture, or restore every relationship damaged by years of political confrontation. Nor should anyone assume that every party outside the present governing coalition shares the same vision for Israel’s future.

The composition of the next Knesset, the coalition negotiations that follow, and the policies adopted by the next government will matter as much as the election-night headlines.

But elections provide a country with an opportunity to choose its direction. They provide citizens with a mechanism for holding their leaders accountable and determining whether the promises made in their name are reflected in the laws and policies enacted by their government. For a country whose founding was inseparable from the Jewish people’s determination to exercise national self-determination, that responsibility carries particular weight.

I do not want Israel to abandon its founding aspirations. I want it to fulfill them.

I do not want Israel to surrender its security. I want it to pursue security with sound judgment, democratic accountability, and a clear understanding of the responsibilities that accompany military power.

I do not want the Israeli-American alliance to collapse under the weight of political disagreements. I want both countries to recognize that their partnership is strongest when it rests on shared interests, mutual respect, and an honest appraisal of their differences.

And I do not want the word Zionism to become a synonym for the policies of a single government, whether in the minds of its most enthusiastic defenders or its most determined opponents.

Zionism is bigger than Netanyahu. Israel is bigger and better than its present government. And the Jewish people’s future cannot be reduced to the political fortunes of one man or one coalition. I believe steadfastly in the potential of Israel. That belief is precisely why I insist that its government must be held to the standards of democracy it has pledged to uphold.

The coming election may not resolve every question confronting the Jewish state. But it could help determine whether Israel begins a new chapter in its political life—one in which democratic accountability, equal civic dignity, national security, and the promise of Jewish self-determination are understood not as competing aspirations, but as essential responsibilities of the same state.

Israel has spent seventy-eight years defending its right to exist. The next chapter must also be about the kind of country it chooses to become. And that, ultimately, is why this election matters.

Am Yisrael Chai.