Israel’s government failed. Tearing it down right now would be worse

As Israel’s general election arrives, almost everyone seems to agree that it is time for a change in leadership. Critics are loudly calling for a new government to heal the country’s social fractures, mend broken trust, and move past recent trauma. That frustration makes sense. However, having spent my career studying public policy, institutional health, and strategic leadership, I see a major flaw in this popular viewpoint. Forcing a sudden political shake-up during a massive, multifront war is dangerous. In a true crisis, national survival and critical U.S. strategic interests both depend on stability. We must keep the current command structure intact while aggressively fixing mistakes from within.The main tactical reason to avoid a wartime election is simple: It paralyzes leadership and disrupts vital international coordination. If the current government drops, it will likely be replaced by an unstable mix of opposition parties. These factions disagree deeply on national security and basic regional strategy. Spending months arguing over how to build a new coalition creates a dangerous power vacuum. During that gap, major military choices, joint intelligence work, and delicate hostage talks get stuck in political limbo. This paralysis directly undermines U.S. operational planning in the region, and Israel’s enemies will instantly exploit the hesitation.We also know from history that throwing a political system into chaos mid-crisis rarely brings stability. The leaders currently in office have spent years managing the complex logistics of this war. A brand-new Cabinet cannot instantly replicate that institutional memory, especially as the military navigates highly complex military and border security operations across multiple fronts. Tearing down the leadership team midstream just adds dangerous wildcards to a theater where U.S. defense metrics require absolute predictability. To be clear, arguing to keep the current government is not an endorsement of its performance. To deserve to stay, leadership must completely change its approach, both at home and abroad. The most urgent job is repairing relationships with international allies, especially the United States, where friction has grown severe and threatened shared security priorities.Alliances are a mandatory part of national security, not a political luxury. Strained relationships block diplomatic options, hurt intelligence sharing, and directly threaten vital military supply lines and critical arms procurement. The government needs to drop the combative public rhetoric and use quiet, disciplined diplomacy to rebuild trust with Washington. This means fixing humanitarian logistics, laying out a clear postwar plan, and aligning goals directly with U.S. regional interests. Fixing these fences is a practical defense requirement, not a concession to foreign pressure.At home, the government must also fix the self-inflicted wounds that have alienated its own citizens and strained international support. This means repairing damaged social-service budgets, backing chronically overstrained public mental health systems for returning reservists, and finally settling the bitter, long-standing dispute over military conscription exemptions for ultra-Orthodox communities. Leadership has to prove it can govern fairly if it expects the public to keep making sacrifices that keep the state secure.Opponents will argue that the current government must go because of its past failures. They believe you cannot fix a broken alliance with the same hands that damaged it, and that domestic healing requires a fresh start.But history and logic show that demanding an immediate political reckoning during a war is a mistake that harms both domestic survival and superpower alignment. During World War II, Great Britain paused regular elections to keep a single, uninterrupted command structure that preserved its alliance with America. Even more directly, right after the shocking start of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israel did not instantly collapse its government. The state maintained continuity to sign crucial military disengagement deals backed by Washington. The deep political investigation by the Agranat Commission correctly waited until the borders were entirely stable.Forcing a hyperpolarized election right now will only tear the country further apart. It forces politicians to attack each other onstage to fire up their bases while soldiers are fighting on the front lines. Furthermore, international relations run on permanent strategic interests, not personal friendships. Washington’s core interests favor a known, predictable leadership executing a clear course correction over a chaotic, unproven coalition that is too busy fighting internally to make a decision.Ultimately, the choice facing Israel is a choice between unpredictable political chaos or demanding disciplined, immediate transformation from the government already in place. This steady path of stability and reform is the only reasonable way forward to protect the state and shield U.S. strategic partnerships. Tearing down the system midstream risks national survival.OBAMA KNOWS BETTER. HE JUST SACRIFICED 4,000 YEARS OF JEWISH HISTORYBy staying steady, fixing domestic policy blunders, and methodically repairing global ties, Israel preserves a position of strength. This continuity ensures uninterrupted military focus for Israel. It guarantees a reliable, predictable democratic partner to advance U.S. interests in a highly volatile region. Regionally, a stable Israel deters further escalation from enemies, creating the environment needed to resume normalizations in the Middle East. Globally, it keeps a local crisis from blowing up into a wider confrontation, protecting vital international trade and shipping corridors from massive disruption.True leadership does not mean blowing up the government in the middle of a storm. It means having the discipline to hold the ship steady, the courage to fix failing policies, and the foresight to secure the alliances that protect Israel, its people, and vital U.S. interests. In a region governed by raw power, stability is not a passive choice — it is the ultimate instrument of deterrence.Eric Wargotz is a practicing physician, geopolitical analyst, and multisector policy writer whose commentary has appeared in the Washington Examiner, the Baltimore Sun, and the Jerusalem Post. He is a judge and the 178th President of MedChi, the Maryland State Medical Society, following a career that includes serving as a Senate nominee and elected county commission president. A clinical professor emeritus at The George Washington University, his views are his own and do not represent his affiliates.