Daddy, Chill. Israel Will Survive Without You

Benjamin Netanyahu has apparently decided that the best way to bring Israel together is to explain which elected representatives should be treated as enemies of the country. An interesting approach to unity. Usually, you start with common ground. Bibi seems to prefer starting with a flamethrower and asking everyone to appreciate the warmth.

According to the Times of Israel, Netanyahu used his speech at the newly sworn-in Knesset to demand a unity government while accusing Arab parties of seeking Israel’s destruction. His bloc has lost its parliamentary majority, and Gadi Eisenkot has the mandate to try to form a government.

Daddy, chill. Losing your majority is not the same thing as losing the country.

That distinction matters because Netanyahu’s argument asks Israelis to confuse his political survival with their national survival. Once those become interchangeable, any alternative government can be presented as an existential emergency. Ordinary coalition negotiations suddenly become a thriller in which only one aging protagonist can stop the apocalypse. Somehow, the casting director never considers anyone else.

Israel faces serious security threats. That is precisely why its citizens deserve an argument more substantial than the suggestion that everyone should put their differences aside and arrive at the remarkably convenient conclusion that Benjamin Netanyahu must remain indispensable. A security assessment should explain capabilities, risks, and decisions. It should not double as a subscription renewal notice for the prime minister.

There is also a basic democratic principle here: citizens do not become less entitled to political representation because their votes inconvenience the incumbent. Arab Israelis should not have to choose between supporting the right parties and having their representatives treated as legitimate participants in public life. Voting rights mean considerably less if your ballot counts on election night but becomes morally suspicious during coalition negotiations.

None of this requires giving Arab lawmakers a free pass. Their statements, alliances, and policy demands deserve scrutiny. Hamas is a terrorist organization, and minimizing its atrocities deserves condemnation. But scrutiny requires accuracy. The article reports that Yasser Hujirat, whose remarks Netanyahu invoked, said his comments had been distorted and explicitly rejected the claim that he considered Hamas a charitable organization. Readers deserve that context, too.

Evaluate the explanation. Challenge it where warranted. Demand consistency. But a disputed interview does not relieve a prime minister of the responsibility to substantiate sweeping accusations against entire parties. If the evidence supports a specific charge, make that charge. Turning every disagreement into a referendum on whether someone secretly wants the country destroyed is an excellent way to avoid discussing what they actually propose.

And spare us the implication that defending Jewish self-determination requires defending Netanyahu’s continued employment. A Jewish homeland should be strong enough to survive a change of prime minister. If your argument for national resilience depends on one politician never surrendering power, you are describing a remarkably fragile nation. Israel’s supporters should reject that premise, especially when it comes wrapped in patriotic branding.

The practical problem is equally serious. Coalition building requires negotiating across differences. There are legitimate reasons to reject a prospective partner: incompatible policies, unacceptable conditions, or an inability to sustain a governing agreement. Those are arguments adults can examine. Treating cooperation itself as national betrayal makes compromise toxic before anyone has read the terms. Then the politician poisoning the negotiations gets to complain that everyone is divided.

Accountability offers another test of this supposed commitment to unity. The report describes opposition lawmakers pressing Netanyahu over his refusal to establish a state commission of inquiry into October 7. (timesofisrael.com) A credible appeal for national solidarity should make room for difficult questions about leadership and failure. Citizens should not have to suspend their demand for answers to demonstrate that they care about their country.

For those of us who support Israel and want it to remain both Jewish and democratic, this rhetoric deserves a particularly forceful response. We should expect leadership that can defend Jewish safety while respecting Arab citizenship. We should demand security policies that withstand examination and political institutions that can function without personal loyalty tests. Those commitments belong together. Treating them as incompatible hands extremists an argument they have not earned.

A unity government might be appropriate if its members can agree on a serious program. Its value would depend on what it does, whom it serves, and whether it can earn public trust. The label alone proves nothing. You cannot shout “unity” over a speech that divides potential partners into patriots and enemies and expect the contradiction to disappear through sheer volume.

Bibi, take a breath. Make your case. Answer the questions. Accept that other elected leaders get to try.

Israel is a country with a future, not a lifetime appointment with a flag attached. Its survival should never depend on protecting one man from the perfectly democratic possibility that his turn is over.