Editorial: Netanyahu Must Face Eisenkot in Televised Debate Before Election

With two weeks remaining before Israel heads to the polls, voters are entitled to hear Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot defend their competing visions for the country’s future in a direct, televised confrontation. Eisenkot, who leads the Yashar party, has publicly challenged Netanyahu to a debate and offered the incumbent the choice of broadcaster and format. The prime minister should accept without delay.

Public demand for such an exchange is substantial. A Kan 11 survey released Sunday found that 54% of respondents favor a debate, including 38% of likely Likud supporters and 80% of prospective Yashar voters. Before the October 27 election, both men must submit to sustained questioning on national security, military conscription, economic policy, and the coalition agreements they intend to forge.

The case for a debate transcends polling data. A prime minister seeking another mandate must be willing to defend his record against a challenger. A former military chief pursuing the premiership must demonstrate how his operational experience translates into effective governance. Both are asking the electorate to trust their judgment; that judgment warrants public scrutiny while voters can still act on what they learn.

The events of October 7 must occupy center stage. Netanyahu should explain the policies and intelligence assumptions that preceded Hamas’s attack, the personal responsibility he bears, and the concrete changes he has implemented since. Eisenkot must account for his tenure as chief of staff and his subsequent role as an observer in the wartime cabinet. What did each man misjudge? Which warnings were heeded or ignored? What independent inquiry would each endorse, and would either cooperate fully if its findings implicated political allies?

How will candidates prevent another October 7 level catastrophe?

Israel requires these answers to assess how its leaders would avert a repeat catastrophe. Accountability also demands examining the doctrines and decisions of the military and intelligence establishments. Any credible investigation must possess the authority to follow evidence wherever it leads.

The candidates must also articulate how they intend to secure the country in the years ahead. How would they prevent Hamas and Hezbollah from reconstituting their capabilities? What is their strategy for confronting Iran’s threats? How would they preserve Israel’s operational freedom while managing the indispensable relationship with the United States? Voters can reasonably expect clear strategic objectives and a candid assessment of costs and risks, with operational specifics appropriately protected.

The issue of military service demands equal candor. Each candidate should specify how he would increase enlistment among ultra-Orthodox men, which exemptions he would permit, and how the law would be enforced. Recruitment targets, deadlines, and consequences for non-compliance matter, as does the army’s capacity to absorb new personnel. Reservists and their families need to know when additional manpower would begin relieving their burden.

Domestic economics deserves a place alongside security on the debate stage. The contenders should explain their plans for housing affordability, taxation, and public expenditure, and how they would fund their promises. Every spending commitment competes with other pressing needs, including defense outlays and the reconstruction of communities devastated by war.

Coalition makeup will determine the answers

Coalition arithmetic will test every proposal. Israelis elect a 120-member Knesset, where a governing majority requires 61 seats. Netanyahu and Eisenkot should disclose whose support they would court, what concessions they would entertain, and which commitments they consider non-negotiable. Netanyahu must clarify what he would promise his prospective partners. Eisenkot must explain how a coalition united primarily by opposition to Netanyahu could agree on a coherent governing agenda.

Broadcasters should immediately propose a date and a rigorous format: independent moderators, equal speaking time, aggressive follow-up questioning, and a full recording accessible to all. Candidates should receive topics in advance but face the questions live. Moderators must insist on substantive answers when either man substitutes personal attacks for policy explanations.

Other party leaders likewise warrant serious scrutiny. A Netanyahu-Eisenkot debate would serve as a necessary starting point, followed by comparable examination of contenders whose parliamentary strength could determine the next government.

A televised confrontation reveals preparation, composure, and evasiveness. Governing demands far more, and voters will weigh the candidates’ records alongside their debate performance. Nevertheless, such an encounter would establish public commitments that journalists and citizens could revisit after the election.

Netanyahu should accept the invitation. Both candidates owe Israelis sufficient time to evaluate their answers before casting their ballots.

Source link