Many Israelis see Naftali Bennett as an Israeli version of Peter Magyar. They want to believe that, like Magyar – who emerged from Hungary’s authoritarian ruling system to challenge and defeat it – Bennett has seen the light, broken away from the populist-nationalist bloc, and can now be trusted to carry the banner of democratic renewal.
There were always good reasons to be wary of this appealing story, which sounds somewhat naive to many of those desperate to rid themselves of the destructive Benjamin Netanyahu. Who can guarantee that under certain circumstances, Bennett – no stranger to political reversals – would not hand back to Netanyahu Knesset seats that came from liberal voters?
It’s an unacceptable risk, as removing Netanyahu is critical. The Oct. 7 massacre exposed the rot that developed under his obsession with power. Any other Israeli leader would have resigned, agreed to a commission of inquiry, and certainly not run again. Netanyahu, of course, clings to his chair, fortifies his benighted coalition by funneling massive resources to the haredi parties, and continues to attack Israel’s democratic institutions without shame.
This week, with the announcement of a merger between Bennett’s party and Yesh Atid, the former director of the Yesha Council took a significant step toward calming skeptics. He appears to understand the above – and at the very least, he will no longer be able to drag his mandates back to Netanyahu.
Moreover, his firm statements on drafting the ultra-Orthodox, establishing a state commission of inquiry, and opposing the incitement and division sown by Netanyahu are all very important. You can see Bennett is a decent man, at least by the standards of politics. You can see he’s a patriot who will not go out of his way to appoint fools and corrupt figures wherever possible.
But courage and intellectual integrity on the level of Magyar we have not yet seen. Magyar, though he came from the party of Viktor Orbán – the father of the elected autocracy idea Netanyahu has embraced – has broken with it completely. His statements since his victory point to a genuine break in almost every area: relations with the European Union, support for Ukraine, democracy, gay rights, academic and press freedom, and kleptocracy.
Bennett, for now, instead insists that he remains “right-wing” – as if ideological competition can simply be set aside in the name of “unity.” Yes, that might pull votes from the Right – but truth it is not. For what, exactly, is this “Right” that people take pride in?
Fine – it’s a nepotistic “family” distributing jobs to insiders; we understand that. But what of ideology? The Right here is not about capitalism, as elsewhere. Nor was the Right historically defined by militaristic activism – until recent years, the Center-Left actually did more of that.
Contempt for institutions of the rule of law
One thing that does define today’s Right is contempt for the institutions of the rule of law meant to limit government power, and a constant effort to weaken and control them – from the courts to the civil service, including the security forces and even the media, public and commercial alike. Everything must be mobilized for the benefit of the government.
Hence, the deranged conspiracies about the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) allegedly helping Hamas to “bring down a right-wing government.”
This is a poison machine at the level of refined cyanide – lies sold by crooks to fools. Bennett is neither, so why not say so clearly – for example, rejecting outright the so-called “override clause,” which has no parallel in the democratic world?
A second defining feature of the Right is total submission to the ultra-Orthodox, because in no election has the Right ever won a majority without relying on them. The ultra-Orthodox have never held the “balance of power” – they have always delivered power to the Likud, so the party’s in their pocket.
But Bennett should understand that drafting the ultra-Orthodox into the army is not enough. Core education must be enforced, and the entire corrupt system of incentives and subsidies that allows them to avoid meaningful participation in the economy, while maintaining unsustainably high birth rates, must be dismantled. It will be difficult and unpleasant, and there’ll be upheaval – but it is necessary.
The third defining feature is fierce opposition to any reduction of Israeli control in the West Bank, coupled with a willingness to settle every corner of the territory, indulgence toward Jewish terrorism, and complacency about the plainly undemocratic reality.
I understand how difficult it is for Bennett, a former settler leader, to break from this. But I also believe he is a Zionist nationalist. Such a person should not blindly support a situation that leads to a binational state losing its Jewish majority. He should seek a solution, even if risky, that separates Israel from millions of Palestinians in the West Bank, and certainly in Gaza. In “Greater Israel,” there is already an Arab majority. With all due respect to his past, it is inconceivable that Bennett does not understand this.
It is complicated, and after October 7, extreme caution is required; a Palestinian state can wait. But it would help greatly if Bennett signaled that he understands Jewish terrorism is wrong, entanglement of populations is unwise, and that creative solutions should be pursued. That would be enough, for now.
Finally, the exclusion of Arab parties in favor of a “Zionist coalition” is harmful and unnecessary. Reliable polls show Netanyahu’s coalition at around 50 seats out of 120 – a consistent figure for three years. Bennett and the more liberal opposition parties have around 60, with another 10 seats going to Arab parties. This is already on a knife’s edge, and if the Arab parties run jointly and gain, say, 15 seats, they could mathematically push the “change bloc” below 60 even in an optimistic scenario.
So why lock yourself into creating another promise that may be broken? Did Netanyahu disqualify the non-Zionist haredim? This is simply capitulation to his malicious narrative. Let’s put it this way: Magyar would not have scored such an own goal.
Many will say Bennett shouldn’t abandon ambiguity to appeal to the Right. There is some truth in that, even if it smells like deception. I’m not suggesting he become a classic leftist. But the public is ready to hear truth – about the disaster of the ultra-Orthodox issue, the problems in the West Bank, and the importance of preserving liberal democracy. People, by and large, understand that something is wrong. Especially after years of Netanyahu’s jackhammer lies, chicaneries, and machinations, they’re ready for some truth and perhaps even demand it.
There was some logic in the opposition’s running as fragmented factions, so that every voter, however particular, could find their niche. But there is also logic in momentum – the kind created by a large party that dwarfs the Likud in the polls.
If Bennett takes the steps outlined here, it would be highly desirable for Gadi Eisenkot to join him, and perhaps others as well. If not, it may be better to run separately, so that clear, unvarnished truth has a political home.
And this brings us back to Magyar and his lessons for us. He did not one but two things: he came from the Right, yes – but he also built enormous momentum by blowing a hurricane of truth. That found a large and eager market in Hungary. That market exists here as well.
