Israeli Elections: Time for New Leadership After October 7

On Tuesday Israelis go to the polls. Many still wonder which candidate deserves their vote. This is the wrong question. The real question is why the choice remains among those who shaped the systems that failed on October 7.

In the days after that catastrophe a powerful sentiment emerged. People across the political spectrum said enough. We promised ourselves change. We spoke of a new leadership emerging from the battlefield. Men and women who demonstrated real responsibility. They left everything to defend the country. For a moment it seemed a political revolution was possible.

That moment passed. The political establishment and much of the media framed new leadership as too risky. They argued experience even experience linked to failure was safer. So we are back to choosing from the same pool. We are asked to trust the architects of our pre October 7 reality.

Consider the four prominent figures vying to lead. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu bears the greatest direct responsibility. He was in charge on October 7. Leadership means accepting responsibility for catastrophic failure. He can credit the military achievements since October 8. They do not erase his accountability for the seventh.

His challengers are not innocent bystanders. Gadi Eisenkot served as IDF chief of staff. Naftali Bennett and Avigdor Liberman both served as defense minister. Each held enormous influence over military preparedness and strategic priorities. They did not all hold office on that day. Their individual responsibilities differ. Yet each was a significant part of the system that failed.

Remember the reservists who reported for duty. Many found their units lacked basic equipment. They needed modern protective vests helmets and drones. The military did not provide these essentials. Instead reservists and their families raised money. Jewish communities abroad donated. Volunteers organized emergency shipments. Citizens worked around the clock to equip soldiers.

This was an extraordinary show of solidarity. It was also a stunning indictment of our preparedness. How does a nation that spends so much on defense rely on private donations to arm its soldiers. The shortages point to deeper failures in procurement and readiness.

These questions cannot be aimed solely at Netanyahu’s government. They must also target former defense ministers and chiefs of staff. They oversaw the systems that left soldiers unprepared. Accountability cannot be selective. We cannot demand Netanyahu’s resignation while exempting his predecessors from scrutiny. Impressive military resumes are not substitutes for accountability.

There are alternatives on the ballot. Parties like People of Israel, Haredi Public and the Reservists Economic Party offer different voices. They should be judged seriously on their policies and competence. Newness alone is not a qualification. Voters must consider if smaller parties can cross the electoral threshold. But we owe these movements more than automatic dismissal.

• We need leaders whose first instinct is cooperation
• We need loyalty to country over political career
• National unity must be more than a wartime slogan
• The people who defended Israel after October 7 showed courage and responsibility
• Why assume those who lead soldiers cannot help lead the country
• Why assume new voices cannot solve the issues the old guard keeps avoiding

October 7 should have been a turning point in our politics. We cannot keep complaining about the same politicians and failures. We cannot return them to power election after election. If we meant what we said after the massacre then we must give a new generation a chance. Israel deserves more than another election between yesterday’s failures. It deserves a new beginning.