Netanyahu would rather be surrounded by underqualified men than capable women | Opinion

In recent weeks, a heated political controversy has erupted in Israel, centered around a seemingly minor but deeply symbolic issue: the language proficiency of its top military leaders. At the heart of the dispute is Gadi Eisenkot, former Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), who has accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s inner circle of engaging in racist behavior by mocking his limited English skills. The incident has sparked a broader conversation about the role of language in leadership, the nature of political attacks, and the implications of such tactics on public perception.

The conflict began when Yonatan Urich, Netanyahu’s senior campaign strategist, posted a video online featuring Eisenkot speaking at the Washington Institute. In the clip, Eisenkot appears to struggle with certain phrases, prompting Urich to label him "Mr. Hasbara" — a term often used to describe individuals who engage in propaganda or biased communication. Urich’s post was accompanied by a sarcastic remark questioning whether Eisenkot was ready to debate Netanyahu in English. This was not an isolated act; it followed a previous challenge from Eisenkot to Netanyahu to hold a public debate, which Urich had dismissed with similar condescension.

Eisenkot, who served as chief of staff from 2015 to 2023, has long been regarded as one of Israel’s most capable military leaders. Born in Tiberias to Moroccan immigrants, he joined the IDF at age 18 and rose through the ranks of the Golani Brigade before attaining his highest position. His career has been marked by strategic acumen and a deep understanding of national security issues. Yet, despite his achievements, Urich’s comments have cast doubt on his suitability for national leadership, suggesting that his linguistic limitations disqualify him.

This critique has drawn sharp rebukes from Eisenkot himself and members of his political allies. In response to Urich’s remarks, Eisenkot accused Netanyahu’s party of racism, arguing that the attack was not merely about language but about undermining his credibility based on perceived ethnic or cultural biases. According to Eisenkot, the focus on his English fluency was a calculated effort to diminish his authority and distract from more pressing concerns facing the nation.

The timing of the attack has also raised eyebrows. As Israel grapples with rising international skepticism toward its policies, particularly in the wake of a Pew survey showing that majorities in 36 countries now view Israel negatively, the emphasis on language seems increasingly misplaced. Moreover, recent polls indicate that more Americans now sympathize with Palestinians than Israelis, a trend that has occurred even under Netanyahu’s tenure, during which he maintained strong ties with English-speaking nations.

Critics argue that Urich’s actions reflect a broader pattern of using personal attacks to deflect attention from policy failures. They suggest that instead of addressing real challenges, such as economic inequality, security threats, or internal divisions, the Netanyahu administration resorts to inflammatory rhetoric aimed at weakening opponents. This approach, they claim, undermines the democratic process and risks alienating segments of the population that value inclusivity and merit-based leadership.

As the situation unfolds, it remains unclear whether the controversy will lead to significant political consequences. While some analysts predict that the issue may fade quickly, others warn that it could deepen existing tensions within Israeli politics. With the upcoming elections looming, the debate over language and leadership may continue to shape public discourse, highlighting the complex interplay between personal attributes, political strategy, and national identity.