Israel needs a government of national repair

Benjamin Netanyahu’s supporters can point to substantial achievements: the Abraham Accords, the crippling of Hamas and Hezbollah, direct action against Iran and the eventual return of the hostages. Any serious case for change should acknowledge them. But an election is not a lifetime-achievement award. It is a decision about who can lead Israel from where it stands now, and our beloved Israel is wounded, divided and dangerously trapped in the political habits that preceded October 7.

The case for change begins with accountability. October 7 was the worst day in Israel’s history: a collapse of intelligence, military preparedness and political leadership. Senior security figures have accepted responsibility or left office. Netanyahu remains and has resisted the state commission of inquiry needed to establish, independently and authoritatively, how the disaster occurred.

Israel cannot protect itself from the next October 7 until it understands the last. The first act of a new government should therefore be to establish that commission, publish its findings and implement them without fear or favour.

The Charedi exemption exposes the same refusal to confront reality. For three years, reservists have repeatedly left families, businesses and careers to defend the country. Yet the government has fought to preserve mass exemptions for Charedi men while directing billions of shekels to institutions that sustain the arrangement. The 2026 budget lifted allocations to Charedi educational institutions to more than NIS 5 billion ($2.3 billion).

A viable Jewish state cannot remain permanently divided between those required to defend it and those financed to avoid doing so. A new government should create universal military, national or meaningful civil service, not blanket immunity negotiated for votes.

Israel’s military achievements have also failed to produce a coherent political destination. Hamas has been devastated but not erased. Gaza’s future remains unresolved. Netanyahu promised “total victory”, but victory was repeatedly redefined. Israel has also become increasingly isolated, including among democratic allies. Some hostility is undoubtedly driven by antisemitism and double standards. Nevertheless, leadership is judged by outcomes. Explaining Israel’s isolation is not the same as reversing it.

But the argument for change must be about more than removing Netanyahu. After three years of war, Israel needs a government of national repair beginning in the north and south. Rebuilding must mean restoring schools, health services, agriculture, businesses and confidence so displaced families can return and remain. Survivors of October 7, former hostages, bereaved families, wounded soldiers and traumatised children require a sustained national recovery program, not temporary assistance.

Israel also owes a new covenant to its reservists. Those who have carried the country cannot be left with broken businesses, interrupted education, damaged relationships and untreated trauma. Employment protection, compensation, educational support and accessible mental health care should become national commitments.

Government itself must change. Israel needs fewer politically invented ministries, professional appointments, measurable priorities and public money redirected from coalition maintenance towards defence, hospitals, schools and reconstruction. It needs a two-term limit for prime ministers, clearer constitutional rules and restored respect for independent institutions.

A government of repair must also stop governing through internal enemies. Israel cannot heal while politicians continually divide secular from religious, right from left, Ashkenazi from Mizrahi, or Jewish from Arab. It must confront crime and alienation in Arab communities, bring more citizens into national service and economic participation, and restore the idea that disagreement does not make another Israeli a traitor.

Externally, new leadership should rebuild bipartisan support in Washington, repair relations with democratic allies, restrain out-of-control settler extremism and develop a regional strategy that converts military power into lasting security. Israel need not surrender its interests to regain international legitimacy. It needs disciplined diplomacy joined to credible force.

Gadi Eisenkot and his opposition partners offer a plausible vehicle for this change. Eisenkot himself is not a naïf promising peace through goodwill. He is a former IDF chief of staff, a seasoned security hawk and a father who lost his son and two nephews in the war. He joined Netanyahu’s war cabinet and left when he concluded it sacrificed military strategy for the government’s political survival. His case is not that one more general can save Israel. It is that serious, accountable leadership can restore institutions, distribute sacrifice fairly and unite a traumatised country around reconstruction.

This election is therefore not fundamentally right against left. It is accountability against evasion; shared service against political privilege; national repair against coalition survival; restrengthening the country against continual division.

Netanyahu has had his time. Israel must now choose not merely a new leader, but a new beginning.

Adam Slonim is an ALP Life Member, podcaster and businessman.