Israel’s Heroes Need Leaders to Match

When passengers on a flight to Tel Aviv reportedly intervened to stop a suspected cockpit attack, they demonstrated the instinctive courage on which Israel depends. The country’s politicians face a different test: turning that courage into a strategy for peace, security and a future beyond perpetual war.

When Ordinary People Become Heroes

A plunging airliner is an unlikely setting for a lesson in political leadership. Yet the reported events aboard a flydubai flight from Dubai to Tel Aviv offer a revealing glimpse of both Israel’s social resilience and the questions confronting its government.

According to initial accounts, passengers aboard flight FZ1073 intervened after the co-pilot allegedly stabbed the captain, helping subdue him as the aircraft descended thousands of feet. The plane ultimately reached safety, and passengers returned to Israel. Investigators are still working to establish precisely what happened and what motivated the alleged attack.

The passengers had no reliable way of knowing how much time remained, whether the aircraft could be recovered or whether their intervention would succeed. Faced with an immediate threat, they acted.

Their response illustrates a recurring feature of Israeli public life: the willingness of ordinary citizens to assume extraordinary responsibility when established safeguards appear to fail. It is a powerful instinct, but one that carries an uncomfortable implication for the country’s political class. A population capable of such initiative should not have to compensate indefinitely for the absence of a convincing national strategy.

A Country That Runs Towards Danger

Israel’s recent history offers no shortage of examples of civilian courage. The Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023, exposed catastrophic failures in the country’s security arrangements. They also produced accounts of civilians, emergency workers, soldiers and reservists placing themselves in danger to protect others.

Some drove toward communities under attack without knowing the scale of the assault or whether military reinforcements were available. Others sheltered families, treated the wounded or joined the effort to rescue those trapped in their homes.

These acts of bravery do not erase the failures that made them necessary. Nor should the public’s resilience become an excuse for institutional complacency. A country can rightly honor its citizens’ courage while demanding answers about how its defenses failed and what must change to prevent another catastrophe.

That distinction is especially important as Israel approaches its next national election, scheduled for October 27, according to the current political calendar. The campaign comes after years of war, immense personal sacrifice and mounting uncertainty about the country’s regional position.

Israelis have demonstrated their willingness to defend their country. They are entitled to ask what, beyond survival, their leaders intend to achieve.

The Burden of Sacrifice

The continuing commitment of Israel’s reservists illustrates the depth of that responsibility.

Consider the family of Yechiel Leiter, Israel’s ambassador to the United States. His son Neria was reportedly seriously wounded in a ramming attack on Route 443 while serving in the reserves, following the death of his brother Moshe in combat in Gaza in 2023.

The family’s experience reflects a reality shared by many Israelis: military service and national security are not abstractions debated at a safe distance. They enter family homes, interrupt careers and place enormous emotional burdens on parents, partners and children.

Reservists who return to duty after bereavement or injury within their families embody a form of commitment that cannot simply be commanded. It rests on a belief that their service protects something worth preserving.

Political leaders benefit from that commitment. They also have an obligation to justify it.

Courage in government does not mean displaying a greater appetite for military action. Nor does it require abandoning Israel’s security imperatives for the sake of diplomatic approval. It means explaining the objectives of a conflict, defining achievable outcomes and being candid about the costs when those outcomes remain elusive.

Above all, it means recognizing that military power is an instrument of national strategy, not a substitute for one.

The Limits of Military Victory

Israel has demonstrated formidable military capabilities during the years since October 7. But battlefield achievements and lasting security are not interchangeable.

Hamas’s remaining military capabilities and political influence in Gaza, the threat posed by Hezbollah on Israel’s northern border, and the confrontation with Iran over its nuclear program and regional activities all present different challenges. Each requires a combination of military preparedness, intelligence, diplomacy and political judgment.

Destroying weapons, degrading command structures and eliminating immediate threats can be essential objectives. Yet the strategic test is what follows.

Who governs Gaza? What arrangements can prevent Hamas from rebuilding its military infrastructure? How can Israel protect its northern communities over the long term? What relationship should it seek with the Palestinians, and how can it manage confrontation with Iran without becoming trapped in an expanding cycle of conflict?

These are not questions that can be answered by military force alone.

Israel could emerge from years of fighting more capable of deterring its adversaries, yet still face an unstable region, a damaged international reputation and an exhausted population. Alternatively, it could use its military strength to create leverage for arrangements that reduce the likelihood of future wars.

Neither outcome is guaranteed. The second would require difficult negotiations, credible security safeguards and partners willing and able to deliver on their commitments. It would also require Israeli leaders to explain what compromises, if any, might be acceptable—and which security requirements must remain non-negotiable.

The country does not need to choose between vigilance and ambition. It needs a strategy that accommodates both.

Gaza and the Risk of Diplomacy

A US-backed proposal for Gaza, unveiled at a meeting in New York, offers one example of the choices facing Israel. Its prospects depend on formidable unresolved questions, including the disarmament of Hamas, the future administration of the territory and the conditions under which Israeli forces might withdraw.

Skepticism is reasonable. Previous diplomatic initiatives have collided with conflicting interests, weak enforcement mechanisms and the difficulty of establishing a political order capable of surviving beyond an initial agreement.

But the obstacles do not make diplomacy inherently futile. Three years after October 7, the costs of continued instability are evident for Israelis and Palestinians alike. A credible proposal that improves Israel’s security while establishing workable arrangements for Gaza deserves serious examination, provided that its assumptions are tested and its guarantees are meaningful.

One troubling feature of the initiative, as described in the original account, was that Israelis were not represented in the room when it was unveiled.

Any plan intended to determine Gaza’s future must take account of Israel’s legitimate security concerns and the political realities inside Israel itself. An arrangement imposed without adequate Israeli participation would face obvious difficulties in securing public confidence and sustaining implementation.

Yet exclusion from an international discussion should prompt more than indignation. It should prompt a harder question: what diplomatic objectives is Israel pursuing, and what practical alternative is it prepared to offer?

A government that wants influence over the region’s future must be willing to articulate a vision and build the partnerships needed to advance it.

From Campaign Slogans to Strategy

Israeli election campaigns often revolve around questions of political allegiance: which parties might form a coalition, which partners are unacceptable and which rival leaders cannot be trusted.

Such questions are part of parliamentary politics. But they are not a substitute for a national debate about outcomes.

Voters should be able to assess competing proposals for Gaza, Lebanon and the Palestinian question, alongside plans for confronting Iran and managing Israel’s relations with the United States and other Western countries. They should hear how candidates propose to balance military readiness with economic recovery, social cohesion and the long-term demands placed on reservists.

What would success in Gaza actually look like? Under what conditions could Israel reduce its military presence without creating a vacuum that another armed group would exploit? What diplomatic arrangements might reduce the threat from Lebanon? How should Israel preserve its freedom of action while maintaining essential international partnerships?

There are no easy answers, and reasonable Israelis will disagree about the risks. A serious political campaign should make those disagreements explicit rather than conceal them behind declarations of loyalty or denunciations of opponents.

The question is not whether Israel should remain prepared to fight. Given the threats it faces, defense will remain central to its national security. The question is whether its leaders can define an achievable political purpose for that strength.

A permanently mobilized society may be capable of extraordinary endurance. It may also pay a growing price in exhausted reservists, disrupted families, economic uncertainty and a generation accustomed to treating emergency as normality. Military preparedness can protect a country; perpetual emergency is not, by itself, a national destination.

The Courage to Imagine Something Else

There is a temptation, after a national trauma, to conclude that security requires permanent confrontation and that any alternative is dangerously naive. Israel has ample reason to distrust assurances unsupported by enforceable commitments. Its adversaries’ actions cannot be wished away, and diplomacy cannot succeed through Israeli concessions alone.

But realism should not be confused with an inability to imagine change.

A stronger Israel would be one capable of defending its citizens, deterring attacks and responding decisively to threats. It would also be one whose leaders could explain how military achievements might contribute to a more stable regional order, rather than merely prepare the country for the next confrontation.

That is a demanding political undertaking. It requires the willingness to challenge familiar assumptions, negotiate when conditions permit, reject arrangements that cannot protect Israeli civilians and acknowledge when existing policies are failing to deliver their promised results.

It also requires something often missing from wartime politics: a clear account of the future the country is trying to build.

The passengers aboard flight FZ1073, according to the emerging accounts, did not wait for someone else to solve an immediate emergency. Israelis who rushed to help on October 7 displayed a similar instinct under vastly different circumstances. Their actions deserve recognition without being romanticized or used to obscure institutional failures.

Politicians face a different responsibility. They cannot promise a future without danger, and they cannot guarantee that diplomacy will succeed. They can, however, explain their objectives, confront uncomfortable trade-offs and show the public how today’s sacrifices might produce greater security tomorrow.

Israel’s citizens have repeatedly demonstrated the courage to act when circumstances demand it. Their leaders should demonstrate the courage to think beyond the next crisis.

A nation can survive through heroism. Building a more secure future requires political leadership worthy of it.