Security Promises are Easy. Upholding them?

What Israelis Mean When They Say “Security”

On the eve of voting, I find myself hoping we get the government we need, even if it is not the one we deserve. Most Israelis feel something similar, even as we disagree bitterly about what “security” requires. Every party promises it, but their definitions diverge sharply. A voter who says, “I’ll choose the party most likely to provide long‑term security,” has not yet answered the essential question: What kind of security?

Two voters may share the same goal and reach opposite conclusions. One believes Israel must extend sovereignty over Judea and Samaria to prevent the emergence of another hostile entity near major population centers. Another believes Israel must pursue a territorial agreement with enforceable security arrangements, arguing that ruling over a large Palestinian population creates military, diplomatic, and political pressures that may erode Israel’s stability. Both want security. They disagree about the path.

To evaluate party promises, voters must first define what they mean by long‑term security. Military security focuses on preventing another October 7, defeating hostile armed groups, and maintaining superiority. Territorial security concerns defensible borders and the future of Judea and Samaria. Diplomatic security involves alliances, regional cooperation, and international legitimacy. Internal security addresses terrorism, organized crime, and violence within Israel. National resilience includes economic strength, social cohesion, functioning institutions, and the ability to withstand prolonged conflict. Parties emphasize different dimensions and accept different risks.

How Parties Claim They Will Deliver It

A party promising to eliminate Hamas must explain the political and security arrangements it envisions for Gaza afterward. A party advocating a negotiated territorial settlement must show how it would prevent hostile groups from exploiting any withdrawal. A party promoting sovereignty over Judea and Samaria must address the military, demographic, diplomatic, and economic consequences. Voters can examine mechanisms, evidence, and assumptions. Tools exist: the Bakalpi comparison outlines documented positions from sixteen parties. But platforms only reveal intentions, not outcomes.

What They Have Actually Done

Many candidates have served in the Knesset or held ministerial office. Their legislative records — available in the Apolitit database — show what they supported, opposed, or advanced. Examining security‑related bills could help, though passing legislation does not automatically improve security. Nor do changes in attack rates necessarily prove success or failure. Declines may result from intelligence operations, enemy constraints, or regional shifts. Increases may mask prevented escalations. Before‑and‑after comparisons rarely tell the full story.

Coalitions Complicate Everything

We vote for parties, but we are governed by coalitions. Security programs are reshaped by agreements, budgets, and compromises among parties with conflicting priorities. Campaign promises often become negotiable. Some voters choose small parties precisely to influence coalition negotiations, not because they expect them to lead.

How Much Can Voters Really Know?

Agreeing with a party’s objectives is easy. Assessing the consequences of its policies requires evidence, expert interpretation, and judgement under uncertainty. Even an informed voter can only be “somewhat” confident — and must accept that “somewhat” is the best most of us can do.

You can read the full in‑depth Substack version of this article here.

👉 Subscribe to my Substack newsletter to follow my new essays and access all full‑length pieces, including extended interviews, analysis, and research: Israel Diaries – The Deep Dive