ByYAAKOV KATZ

JUNE 12, 2026 14:46

Gadi Eisenkot entered the world in Tiberias after his parents arrived from Morocco. His early years unfolded in Eilat amid several schools before military service began at age 18 in the Golani Brigade. Steady advancement followed until he reached the pinnacle as IDF chief of staff in 2015.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu started life in Tel Aviv with childhood years split between Jerusalem and America. High school completion near Philadelphia preceded a return to Israel for IDF duty, followed by further time stateside at MIT, private sector roles, and diplomatic postings.

Two Israelis. Two very different life stories. Both accomplished and both deserving of respect.

Yet anyone asked without prior knowledge which individual likely commands English more fluently would point directly to the one who matured partly in the United States, secured a degree there, and built professional experience over years.

Such an observation carries no controversy. It rests on straightforward common sense.

This assessment ignores nothing about Eisenkot's intellect; reaching IDF chief of staff demands exceptional talent. Still, decades of military duties offered limited scope for refining English.

Foreign delegations, international journeys, and sporadic exchanges with overseas officers occurred, yet none equate to prolonged residence, study, and employment inside an English-dominant setting.

Ordinarily such matters would hold no weight. In truth they should hold none whatsoever.

Nevertheless this week Netanyahu's top campaign advisor Yonatan Urich, already facing scrutiny in the Qatargate matter, chose to spotlight the issue.

Urich posted on social media to deride Eisenkot's English by recirculating an older clip from the Washington Institute and labeling him mockingly as Mr. Hasbara. The goal stood clear: depict Eisenkot as unfit for top leadership due to lesser fluency compared with Netanyahu.

Days earlier after Eisenkot proposed a debate Urich fired back with another dismissive quip asking if he was ready to conduct it in English.

The ridiculousness proves difficult to exaggerate. Israeli prime ministerial contenders hold no obligation to debate in English. Any such exchange, which Netanyahu has declined, would naturally occur in Hebrew given the audience they seek to lead.

Still Urich's message remained plain: portray weaker English as evidence of weaker leadership capacity.

Does English carry importance? Certainly. Can strong fluency aid diplomatic exchanges? Without question. Yet does it decide a leader's capacity to unify Israeli society or grasp border threats? Does it signal skill in crafting military plans, steering through economic turmoil, or deciding matters of life and death amid stress?

Clearly not.

History abounds with remarkable figures who commanded little or no English. Their success hinged on judgment, character, vision, and capacity to guide their nation rather than accent or vocabulary.

Adding to the oddity Urich presented the critique as concern over Eisenkot's skill in presenting Israel's position globally.

He might consider his own reflection.

Just days prior a Pew poll revealed majorities across 36 nations including the United States, Canada, Britain, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and Poland expressing unfavorable opinions of Israel. Earlier Gallup data showed for the first time in twenty-five years more Americans favoring Palestinians over Israelis.

These patterns developed under a prime minister possessing strong English, so if fluency alone drove effective outreach the figures would appear markedly improved.

Tearing down opponents

The reality reveals this episode never centered on language. It reflects a simpler impulse: locating fresh methods to undermine a political foe.

Nor was this the sole instance that week. Another campaign spot cast Israel's Arab citizens as risks while implying any Eisenkot-led government would rely upon them. The approach echoed prior efforts to spread alarm, fracture unity, and vilify.

What stands out involves not only the substance of these strikes but the total lack of constructive elements. No effort appears to clarify why citizens should back Netanyahu's outlook or outline future plans. Policy, strategy, and national goals receive no attention.

Instead attention stays fixed on one approach: tearing down opponents.

Eisenkot requires no defense. Over four decades in service he sustained combat wounds and confronted daily choices of profound consequence.

This matter extends beyond him. It concerns the political environment Israelis choose to tolerate.

Whenever such worries surface regarding Israel's political norms someone notes that politics remain harsh globally in America, Britain, and France.

Perhaps. Yet Israelis reside neither in America nor Britain nor France. Residence lies in Israel.

Israelis repeatedly affirm distinction from other nations by citing history, security demands, collective purpose, and the unique conditions surrounding the state's founding.

Belief in that distinction requires demonstration now. Rejection of a political style rooted solely in mockery, division, and personal assaults becomes essential. Leaders must face demands for ideas over insults. Above all refusal to let figures like Urich shape national discourse must prevail.

He and the movement he represents must recognize he represents deviation rather than standard practice.

Should concern for Israeli democracy's future exist then steps must ensure he stays that way.

The writer is co-founder of MEAD, a senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute, and a former editor-in-chief of The Jerusalem Post. His latest book, While Israel Slept, is a national bestseller in the US.