Three months before Israel’s elections, the country’s opposition faces a challenge that goes beyond criticism of Benjamin Netanyahu. It has become highly effective at explaining why Netanyahu should leave office, but it has yet to persuade Israelis of what should come after him. It can describe, in great detail, the failures of the present, but it has struggled to articulate a coherent vision for the future.

Netanyahu’s political legacy cannot be reduced to a list of failures or achievements. It includes a clearly defined vision of Israel’s future and its place in the world. Netanyahu himself has given that vision a name: “Super-Sparta.” It is not merely a response to circumstances imposed on Israel, but an active doctrine that translates ancient Sparta into the twenty-first century: a vision of a fortress state built on technological superiority, strategic independence, permanent military strength, and a willingness to endure prolonged diplomatic isolation.

Alongside this security vision operates a complementary political logic: what might be called “Ozempic for democracy,” a gradual weakening of the institutions of liberal democracy, including the separation of powers, judicial oversight, and other checks on executive authority. The goal is not to abolish democracy itself. Rather, the “Super-Sparta” vision sits uneasily with liberal democracy in its fullest sense. When security and national cohesion become the overriding values, institutions designed to restrain majority power can increasingly be portrayed as obstacles rather than safeguards.

One can view this vision as an existential threat to Israel’s character as a democratic state and argue that it condemns the country to a future defined by a permanent siege mentality. But one thing cannot be taken away from it: it is clear, consistent, and offers many Israelis a coherent answer to the question of how to survive in a dangerous region. This is precisely where the opposition’s deeper problem begins.

If the coming election were determined solely by public anger and accumulated frustration, Benjamin Netanyahu would have left office long ago. After nearly two decades at the center of Israeli politics, after the October 7 disaster, the country’s deep social divisions, and the erosion of public trust in state........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)