The Beginning of a New Israel: A Democratic Reckoning and the Road Ahead
The 26th Knesset was formally sworn into office two days ago–Tuesday, November 10, 2026. For the first time in years, Israel finds itself confronting the possibility of a political future beyond the seemingly interminable premiership of Benjamin Netanyahu.
The October 27 elections produced a remarkable parliamentary realignment. Netanyahu’s Likud-led coalition emerged substantially diminished, while the opposition parties associated with Gadi Eisenkot secured 48 seats. The two Arab Israeli parties, meanwhile, won a historic 19 seats between them. The Netanyahu-aligned parties retained 53 seats, leaving the political establishment with a difficult but potentially transformative task: constructing a government capable of representing a broader cross-section of Israeli society.
President Isaac Herzog has entrusted Eisenkot with the responsibility of forming that government. Whether he succeeds in assembling a stable coalition remains to be seen. But the political significance of this election should not be underestimated.
After more than a decade of political polarization, judicial controversy, increasingly bitter factional disputes, and a devastating national security catastrophe, Israelis have demonstrated their willingness to consider a different direction.
This is the makings of a political transformation more than a decade in the making. And it is a transformation that must be approached with both optimism and an extraordinary sense of responsibility.
There is something particularly encouraging about the composition of the new Knesset. Thirty-three women have been elected to serve in the 120-member parliament. Two Druze lawmakers will take their seats, and 46 members are newcomers to the incoming legislature.
These numbers represent more than parliamentary statistics. They are a reminder that Israeli democracy, for all its imperfections and contradictions, continues to accommodate a remarkably diverse population.
The representation of Arab Israeli citizens is particularly consequential. Nineteen seats between the Joint List and Ra’am represent an extraordinary parliamentary presence for Arab political parties. That representation deserves to be taken seriously.
Arab citizens of Israel are not guests in their own country. They are citizens entitled to representation, participation, equal protection under the law, and a meaningful voice in the political decisions affecting their lives. Their participation in the democratic process should be regarded as an essential component of Israeli democracy rather than an inconvenience to be negotiated away.
The same principle applies to Israel’s Druze community, whose members have long participated in the country’s civic and military institutions.
A government that wishes to restore confidence in Israeli democracy must recognize that national unity cannot be manufactured through political uniformity. It requires the willingness to accommodate differences, protect minority rights, and recognize the legitimacy of competing political perspectives.
Israel does not need another government that governs exclusively for its political constituency. It needs a government that understands that it governs for the entire country.
There is, however, an enormous responsibility awaiting any government that succeeds Netanyahu. Israel’s next government will be the country’s first post-October 7 government. That distinction carries an almost unbearable historical significance.
October 7, 2023, was not merely another tragic chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was a catastrophic failure of national security, intelligence, preparedness, and civilian protection. The murder, abduction, and brutalization of Israeli civilians exposed vulnerabilities that the country can never afford to ignore again.
The incoming government must therefore understand something fundamental: political renewal cannot come at the expense of national security.
The new Israeli leadership has to be extraordinarily vigilant. Border security must be strengthened. Intelligence capabilities must be continually evaluated and improved. Civilian communities near Israel’s borders must receive the protection, resources, and emergency preparedness necessary to survive another national emergency.
The Israel Defense Forces must retain the operational capabilities required to confront threats from Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and other hostile actors. And the government must establish accountability for the failures that preceded October 7. There must be an independent, credible investigation into the circumstances that made the massacre possible. The Israeli public deserves answers, and the families of those murdered and abducted deserve the truth.
But accountability must not become a substitute for preparedness.
The last thing Israel needs is another generation of dead Jews because its political leadership failed to anticipate, understand, or adequately respond to an existential security threat.
I want Prime Minister Eisenkot, should he successfully form a government, to understand that the preservation of Israeli life is the most consequential responsibility of his office.
There is no political accomplishment more important than ensuring that Israeli families can go to sleep without wondering whether their homes will become the next targets of a terrorist massacre.
Another enormous challenge confronting the incoming government is Israel’s deteriorating international standing. Israel’s diplomatic and public relations apparatus requires a comprehensive overhaul.
For years, Israel has struggled to communicate its position effectively to international audiences. The consequences have been particularly visible since October 7, when images, narratives, accusations, and competing interpretations of the war flooded international media and social networks.
Weaponized propaganda, deliberate disinformation, and antisemitic blood libels have become formidable instruments in the international campaign against Israel. These phenomena cannot simply be dismissed.
At the same time, Israel must understand that not every criticism of its military conduct, government policy, or treatment of Palestinians is propaganda or antisemitism. A democratic country must be willing to confront legitimate criticism, examine its conduct, and answer difficult questions. That distinction is essential.
Israel needs a professional, sophisticated, multilingual public diplomacy operation capable of communicating the country’s security concerns, historical circumstances, democratic institutions, and national interests. It needs communicators who understand contemporary journalism, international relations, social media, and the particular sensitivities of audiences in Europe, North America, and elsewhere. It needs to tell its story with credibility.
That means responding rapidly to disinformation, making reliable information accessible, documenting the experiences of Israeli victims of terrorism, and explaining the complexities of the conflict without relying exclusively on slogans.
Most importantly, Israel must recognize that public diplomacy cannot compensate for failures of policy. Its international credibility will depend on the decisions its government makes, the conduct of its military, and its willingness to uphold democratic principles.
A better communications strategy must accompany substantive political and diplomatic changes. Israel deserves to be heard. But it must also give the international community reasons to listen.
I am equally concerned about growing international pressure to impose comprehensive arms restrictions on Israel.
An arms embargo against the State of Israel is something that must be firmly opposed.
Israel is a sovereign country situated in an exceptionally dangerous neighborhood. Its security requirements are not theoretical. Its enemies possess sophisticated weapons, receive external assistance, and have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to attack Israeli civilians.
Israel cannot be expected to surrender the military capabilities necessary to defend its population.
Demilitarization is not a viable security policy for a country that continues to face threats from terrorist organizations and hostile regional powers.
This is not an argument that Israel should be exempt from international law, humanitarian obligations, or legitimate scrutiny of particular weapons transfers and their end use. Those responsibilities remain essential.
But a comprehensive embargo that undermines Israel’s ability to defend itself would introduce another dangerous vulnerability into an already precarious security environment.
The United States must understand the importance of this relationship.
The American-Israeli partnership is as old as the State of Israel itself. Since Israel’s establishment as a modern-day sovereign state in 1948, the relationship between the two countries has evolved into an extraordinarily consequential strategic partnership encompassing intelligence cooperation, military technology, scientific research, regional security, and diplomatic coordination.
It is in the interests of both countries that this relationship remains intact.
With Democrats having secured majorities in both chambers of Congress in the November 2026 midterm elections, a new political chapter is beginning in Washington as well.
The incoming Democratic Congress should work with the administration to ensure that Israel has access to the defensive systems, ammunition, precision-guided capabilities, and other military resources necessary to protect its population. I would support another substantial American military assistance package for Israel, subject to the appropriate legal requirements, congressional oversight, and end-use safeguards.
This should not be understood as an endorsement of every decision made by every Israeli government. Nor should American support require Americans to surrender their right to disagree with Israeli policy.
Allies can disagree. They always have, and they always will. Indeed, mature alliances must be capable of surviving disagreements without abandoning their fundamental strategic commitments.
The United States and Israel have too much history, too many shared interests, and too much at stake to allow their relationship to deteriorate into a casualty of domestic political polarization.
There is something else that I hope the next Israeli government will understand. Changing the occupants of government offices is not necessarily the same thing as changing the political culture that occupies them.
Israel needs more than a different prime minister. It needs a renewed commitment to democratic institutions, judicial independence, political accountability, minority participation, and the principle that no individual is indispensable to the survival of the state.
The country must be bigger than any one politician. It must be bigger than Likud, bigger than Yashar, bigger than the religious parties, and bigger than the political disagreements that have divided Israeli society.
An Eisenkot-lead Israeli government would have an opportunity to demonstrate that democratic institutions can recover from prolonged political instability. But that opportunity comes with considerable obligations. It must govern responsibly. It must protect the rights of all Israeli citizens. It must confront the failures of October 7. It must preserve the country’s military capabilities while respecting international law. And it must work toward a diplomatic environment in which Israel can defend its national interests without becoming increasingly isolated.
None of these objectives will be accomplished overnight. Nor will the departure of Netanyahu automatically resolve the political, security, and diplomatic problems accumulated during his years in office. But a change in political leadership can create the conditions necessary for meaningful institutional reform. That is the opportunity before Israel.
I have long believed that Israel’s democratic character is among its most consequential national assets.
It is a country whose history is inseparable from the Jewish people’s imperative to exercise national self-determination, preserve their cultural identity, and live without the perpetual fear of persecution. But democracy is not merely the right to elect a government. It is the responsibility to ensure that the government remains accountable to the people who elected it.
Whether these different constituencies can translate their parliamentary representation into a stable and effective government remains an open question. I hope they can.
And I hope that the government eventually formed under Gadi Eisenkot’s leadership will understand the extraordinary historical responsibility that awaits it.
Israel needs a government that can protect its people without sacrificing its democratic character; defend its sovereignty without abandoning its international responsibilities; and rebuild its relationships abroad without compromising its national security. Above all, it needs a government that remembers the human cost of political failure.
There are Israeli families who will never again sit together around a Shabbat dinner table. There are children who will grow up without their parents. There are parents who will never again embrace their children. And there are hostages’ families whose lives have been permanently altered by the atrocities of October 7.
Their suffering must never become another political talking point. It must become an enduring obligation.
I want Israel to succeed. I want its democracy to flourish. I want its citizens, Jewish and Arab alike, to enjoy the security, dignity, and opportunities that every democratic society should afford its people.
I want the United States to remain a dependable partner, and I want Israel to recover the international credibility that has suffered so profoundly in recent years. But none of this can happen without a willingness to learn from the past.
The Netanyahu era may be reaching its end, but the challenges it leaves behind will not leave with him. The next chapter of Israeli history must be written with considerably more humility, prudence, accountability, and foresight.
The 26th Knesset has taken its oath. Now Israel must decide what it intends to do with the opportunity before it.
The work of rebuilding Israeli democracy has only just begun.
