Israeli election campaigns must move past political gimmicks to tackle critical issues - editorial

The central criticism is that the election debate lacks real policy content. The editorial argues that this is especially troubling because the vote is crucial to Israel’s future. Instead of explaining governing plans, parties are emphasizing attacks, slogans, and personal accusations.

The coalition uses billboards and online clips warning “Yamin or Falestine.” The Shinui bloc focuses heavily on Benjamin Netanyahu’s responsibility before and after October 7. The article notes one exception: B’Yachad, which published detailed programs for each ministry.

The campaign is also shaped by possible war with Iran and late allegations about October 7. The editorial calls for discussion of education, transport, environmental policy, unequal military service, emigration, the West Bank, and settler violence. It warns that dramatic headlines may crowd out decisions voters need to assess.

A coalition government is an administration formed by two or more political parties. The parties cooperate because they need enough parliamentary support to govern. Coalitions can let smaller parties influence policy, while larger parties gain the backing needed to lead.

The campaign slogan “Yamin or Falestine” implies that Gad Eisenkot’s rival bloc would form such a coalition with Ra’am. The coalition’s billboards show Eisenkot with Mansour Abbas and Ahmad Tibi behind him. The intended message is that Eisenkot becoming prime minister would mean partnering with Abbas’s Ra’am Party.

The editorial calls the imagery a crass campaign and says it carries racist overtones. The slogan does not establish that Eisenkot would actually form this coalition. It is a political warning designed to shape voters’ fears about who might join the next government.

The elections are scheduled for October 27. The article describes the campaigns as entering their final two weeks, while the disclosures involving Ronen Bar appeared less than three weeks before voting. That leaves little time for parties to respond or for voters to weigh competing evidence.

Timing matters because late news can overwhelm policy discussion. Allegations about Netanyahu’s handling of October 7, a defamation lawsuit, or possible renewed fighting with Iran can become the campaign’s main subject. They may also activate anger, fear, loyalty, or blame more quickly than detailed policy proposals.

The editorial says Gil’s and Bar’s disclosures might have appeared two weeks earlier, after voters went to the polls. It therefore views their timing, and other warnings about October 7, as potentially creating an artificial crisis. The final weeks may decide the campaign narrative before investigations settle the claims.

The article identifies a possible return to war with Iran as the most consequential campaign crisis. It reports that Benjamin Netanyahu discussed a renewed military campaign with Donald Trump. Possible targets included Iran’s nuclear and military sites, with Netanyahu citing alleged efforts to rebuild nuclear capacity.

The key mechanism is security disruption. IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir warned that renewed fighting before the Israeli elections could delay them. The article does not state that postponement would automatically occur, only that renewed fighting could lead to it. Trump reportedly said he would not decide until after the US November midterms.

The political effect could be significant even before any postponement. Netanyahu has built support by presenting himself as the strong leader who protected Israel against Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran after October 7. An attack and delayed election could strengthen that image, according to the editorial.

Benjamin Netanyahu is the prime minister facing the allegations. His former military secretary, Avi Gil, said Netanyahu gave an incomplete account of events surrounding Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack. Gil also alleged that Netanyahu’s chief of staff, Tzahi Braverman, sought to change an official record.

The disputed record concerns when Netanyahu first received Gil’s phone update about the invasion. Gil said Braverman sought to move the time from 6:40 a.m. to 6:29 a.m. Former Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar then filed a NIS 3 million defamation lawsuit, alleging Netanyahu falsely accused him of knowing about the attack and withholding the information.

Eyal Zamir warned that renewed fighting could delay the elections. Donald Trump discussed possible action against Iran with Netanyahu but said he would wait until after the US November midterms before deciding. The article presents these figures as part of a politically charged security dispute.

Security crises can change what voters consider most important. Instead of comparing plans for education or transport, they may focus on immediate danger and which leader appears capable of responding. This can reward an incumbent who has built a reputation for strength, even before facts are fully established.

The article gives Netanyahu as the clearest example. He has portrayed himself as the strong man who protected Israel after October 7 against Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. A renewed attack and an election delay could reinforce that image. Conversely, allegations from Avi Gil and Ronen Bar give the opposition material to challenge his record.

Timing is the key mechanism. The disclosures appeared just weeks before voting, leaving little time for inquiry or rebuttal. The editorial calls this timing suspect and says it can create an artificial crisis. Until claims are investigated, headlines may influence voters more than verified findings or detailed platforms.

In a parliamentary democracy, elections give citizens a way to choose representatives and judge the government’s record. After voting, parties must usually secure enough parliamentary support to govern. That support may require a coalition, so election results can determine both leadership and governing partners.

Accountability also works through investigation. A state commission of inquiry can examine major failures, collect evidence, hear testimony, and produce findings separately from campaign messaging. Its work can help establish responsibility more carefully than speeches, advertisements, or lawsuits. The article says Gil and Bar stayed silent while hoping to testify before such a commission.

This system creates two accountability routes. Voters can respond at the ballot box, while an inquiry can investigate facts and official decisions. The article says Netanyahu has refused to authorize a state commission into October 7. That refusal makes late disclosures especially important politically, but it does not replace a formal investigation.