The Political Culture We Choose: The Case for Naftali Bennett
I support Naftali Bennett not because I think he’s perfect, but because I believe he consistently models, and therefore incentivizes, the kind of political leadership Israel needs more of: unity over tribalism, substance over outrage, and problem-solving over point-scoring.
––
It’s May 2022, the final weeks before Naftali Bennett is forced to call new elections and end his term as Prime Minister. I’m in the Knesset, one of about 30 Yamina party activists meeting with the Prime Minister. He’s talking to us about where we stand from his perspective. He’s not trying to sell us on anything or pitch for our votes; we already all support him. He’s comfortable speaking openly.
He tells us that he’s regularly briefed on the threats Israel faces from its enemies and he’s confident that we can defeat them. What concerns him most is the challenges from within.
He points out that this is the third time in history that the Jewish people have been sovereign in our land. In both previous periods of Jewish sovereignty, internal division ultimately proved catastrophic. Bennett often notes that both commonwealths experienced their defining internal fractures around their eighth decade. National unity, he insists, isn’t just a warm sentiment. It’s an existential priority. Without it, everything falls.
This is the main reason why Naftali Bennett is the leader Israel needs today.
A Longstanding Conviction
Bennett stands out among Israeli politicians for his focus on rebuilding national cohesion.
Even at the start of his political career, as the head of the most right-wing party in the Knesset, he insisted that profound disagreements with the left did not make those on the left any less patriotic, nor those on the right any less committed to peace. Political opponents, in his view, were still members of the same national family.
This message has carried through all the way to his current campaign. Even during intense debates with haredim against serving in the army or with supporters of Itamar Ben-Gvir, Bennett routinely reinforces a simple baseline: we are one people. We will argue, sometimes fiercely, but we are all in this together.
Politics Without Enemies
Bennett’s commitment to national cohesion isn’t just something he talks about. It shapes the way he practices politics.
Modern political strategy rewards the opposite approach. Convince voters that your opponents aren’t merely mistaken but malicious, corrupt, or fundamentally beyond the pale, and compromise becomes harder while elections become easier. Outrage attracts attention. Personal attacks spread faster than policy debates.
Bennett has largely resisted that temptation.
That doesn’t mean he pulls his punches. He has sharply criticized the current government, but his criticism targets policies, performance, and results rather than presumed motives or attacks on personal character. When he criticizes Itamar Ben-Gvir, for example, he points to rising crime, businesses in the North and South paying protection money, and the abandonment of effective inter-agency cooperation against organized crime. He argues that Ben Gvir has failed as National Security Minister, not that he is an evil person.
Similarly, Bennett rarely claims to know what is in his opponents’ hearts. He argues that they are wrong without insisting that they are acting out of malice. In today’s political climate, that’s an increasingly unusual distinction.
The same pattern shows up elsewhere. At a time when dragging politicians’ spouses and children into political fights has become commonplace, Bennett has shown remarkably little interest in following suit, even when interviewers prompt him to do so.
None of this is to say Bennett has never stepped out of line. He has. Politicians are flawed human beings, and Bennett is no exception. What stands out is the pattern. Over more than a decade in the public eye, he has generally kept political disagreement focused on public conduct, rather than personal character.
Against the Current
It’s worth pausing, just for a moment, to recognize how unusual this approach has become. Today’s political environment rewards almost the exact opposite. Social media algorithms amplify outrage. News coverage gravitates toward conflict. The quickest way to dominate a news cycle is rarely to explain a complicated policy proposal; it’s to provoke, ridicule, or inflame.
Politicians understand these incentives. Many lean into them. The easiest way to build loyalty is often to convince supporters that the other side isn’t simply wrong, but dangerous.
Bennett has consistently chosen a harder path. His emphasis on unity, substance, and restraint often makes for less exciting politics and less effective campaigning.
Beyond Political Calculation
At this point I can almost hear the objection: “Avi, are you really that naive? He’s a politician. ‘National unity’ is just a cheap gimmick to get votes by telling you what you want to hear.”
Could be.
I don’t believe that’s the case, but I also don’t think it particularly matters.
Even if you assume Bennett’s motives are insincere and purely tactical, Bennett is still choosing to build his public identity around bringing Israelis together rather than convincing them to fear or despise one another.
The messages politicians choose aren’t created in a vacuum. They respond to incentives. If voters reward outrage, politicians will produce more outrage. If voters reward tribalism, we’ll get more tribalism. And if voters reward leaders who speak about shared responsibility and national cohesion, we’ll get more of that too.
The culture we reward with our votes is the culture we create.
Temperament
At this point, some readers may be thinking: Fine. Bennett values national unity. But unity isn’t a policy.
I agree.
National cohesion doesn’t tell us how to stop Iran, lower the cost of living, reform education, or fix the housing market.
But Bennett’s emphasis on unity doesn’t exist in isolation. The same temperament and habits of mind that reject tribalism also influence how Bennett governs: pragmatism, intellectual curiosity, an impatience with bureaucracy, and a focus on execution.
Drive to Solve Problems
Bennett’s background in high-tech gave him an entrepreneurial approach to public administration: identify the bottleneck, test assumptions against real data, and prioritize outcomes over ideological purity. We saw this when he went after monopolies as Economy Minister, when he pushed to expand advanced 5-point math enrollment as Education Minister, and when he mobilized IDF soldiers to handle quarantine logistics during COVID as Defense Minister.
Reasonable people can disagree with particular policies. I certainly haven’t agreed with every decision Bennett has made. What I value is his tendency to ask, What works? before asking, Whose side is this supposed to help? That is a mindset I would like to see more of in Israeli politics.
A Service Mindset
Bennett’s career also suggests someone motivated more by contribution than position.
He served as a Sayeret Matkal officer, built and sold a successful technology company, led the Yesha Council, served as Netanyahu’s chief of staff, held several ministerial portfolios, and ultimately became prime minister. Whatever one thinks of each stage, the common thread is someone repeatedly stepping into roles where he believed he could make a contribution.
October 7th demonstrated this instinct clearly. While many political figures were struggling to process the crisis, Bennett was using his operational background to contact civilians trapped in safe rooms, sending them practical advice to help them survive. He traveled to a military base and urged commanders to move troops south without wasting precious time on peacetime routines because every minute mattered. Later, he joined reservists in loading ammunition magazines for soldiers heading into battle.
None of those actions required him to hold public office. They reflected a simple question: What can I do right now to contribute?
Never Stops Learning
Bennett is unusually intellectually curious for a politician.
He moves comfortably between discussions of military strategy, economics, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, Tanakh, and education. He has spoken about how studying Tanakh throughout different stages of his life has enriched him personally and as well as his connection to the land and people of Israel. Taken together, these traits suggest a person who doesn’t assume he has already learned everything worth knowing and is eager to expand his knowledge.
No prime minister will make every decision correctly. That’s impossible. What matters is whether they possess the humility to recognize mistakes, learn from them, and improve.
The Choice
When I ask what kind of political culture Israel needs over the next decade, I find myself back in that meeting in May 2022.
Not because Bennett has all the answers to every problem, or because I agree with every decision he’s ever made. I don’t. I support him because Israel needs leaders who criticize policies without questioning the patriotism or motives of those they disagree with. Leaders who care more about solving problems than performing for social media. Leaders who remain curious enough to keep learning and humble enough to change course when they’re wrong.
I want to reward leadership that puts Am Yisrael ahead of political tribalism, competence ahead of rage bait, and execution ahead of scoring political points.
That’s why I’m voting for Naftali Bennett.
