The decision of whom not to vote for is no less consequential than that of whom to vote for. 

With the October 27th election approaching with disconcerting speed, the decision of whom to vote for is becoming increasingly persistent in the public consciousness.

But while wrestling with the dilemma of who to vote for, the inevitable converse quandary—of who not to vote for—is no less pertinent. Indeed, given the copious blemishes of most political parties, it is hardly surprising that numerous voters base their decision on election day on a process of elimination—i.e., on who not to vote for—with a sense of rejection rather than of attraction, having the greater role.

Bennett: Unprecedented deceit

Clearly, topping the list of whom voters should avoid is none other than Naftali Bennett, who has brought deceit and deception on the part of politicians seeking election to unprecedented heights—or is that “depths”? Readers will recall his breathtaking about-face when he reneged on his pledge (written and televised) not to facilitate leftist Yair Lapid becoming Prime Minister—”neither by rotation nor otherwise”—and then did precisely that.

No less grave was the fact that, in order to enable the establishment of a non-Netanyahu government, Bennett agreed to include the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Ra’am in his coalition. Indeed, on the very night of the election, Bennett declared with great flourish and fanfare: “I won’t allow Yair Lapid to be prime minister, including in a rotation (agreement)” and “I will not establish a government based on the support of Mansour Abbas from the Islamic Movement.” Of course, he did both.

Apparently, for Bennett there is no taboo—social, security, or ethical — that he will not violate in his seemingly pathological pursuit of power. Accordingly, voters should avoid him like the political plague that he, in fact, is.

Liberman: Personal vindictiveness eclipses national interest

Next on the rung of the ladder of infamy is the odious Avigdor Liberman, the man to blame, more than any other, for the political deadlock that resulted in five elections in less than four years. Indeed, solely because of his personal enmity towards Netanyahu, Liberman preferred to partner with racial Left-wing elements and even with the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Ra’am, rather than serve in a Netanyahu-led government.

This choice comprised an act of twofold hypocrisy.

The first being that Liberman’s party repeatedly submitted/supported petitions to the Central Election Commission of the Knesset to bar Ra’am from taking part in the election on the grounds that the party does not conform to the provisions of Clause 7A of Israel’s Basic Law: The Knesset—which mandates(a) recognition of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state and (b) prohibition of support for armed struggle against Israel.

None of this prevented Liberman, as Minister of Finance, from approving the allocation of tens of billions of shekels to the Arab sector—raising concern that significant portions thereof might find their way into the coffers of Arab crime syndicates.

Secondly, Liberman’s barefaced hypocrisy was further amplified by the fact that although he has served in multiple pre-2019 coalitions that included Haredi (Ultra-religious) factions, he suddenly insisted on ensuring Haredi conscription into the IDF as a condition for his joining Netanyahu’s government—this despite the fact that he initially recommended that Netanyahu be designated by then-President Rivlin for the premiership. Curiously, the fact that the Ra’am electorate does not serve in the IDF seems not to have bothered him in the slightest…

Lapid: Ensconcing anti-Zionists in positions of power

Thus, both Bennett and Liberman have proven that neither can be counted on to fulfill their election platform or their campaign promises. But worse, they have shown that they are quite capable of undertaking precisely what they pledged to avoid/prevent—and thus are utterly unworthy of the trust of the voters.

Another outstanding hypocrite is the current head (in name only) of the ineffectual opposition, Yair Lapid, who likewise provides the electorate with a myriad of reasons for not voting for him. Like Bennett and Liberman, he has demonstrated that he has scant regard for national interest. Thus, driven by his almost pathological Bibiphobic animus, he set up a government comprised of a motley collection of post/non/anti-Zionists, thus ensconcing radical extremists in positions of power, from which the general public has long wished to exclude them. Likewise, readers will doubtless recall the scandalous concession of potentially resource-rich stretch of maritime waters adjacent to Lebanon, under the specious claim that this would placate Hezbollah and reduce the threat of hostilities with the Islamist terror group.

And we all know how splendidly that worked out!

Even more outrageous was his refusal to bring the measure to parliament for approval, under the shameless claim that the Knesset composition was not to his liking and unlikely to authorize/ratify the handover. No kidding!

Topping off Lapid’s list of ignominious misdeeds was his government’s hurried appointment of Herzi Halevi as IDF Chief-of-Staff—at the very end of his incumbency as interim prime minister. Traditionally, interim governments are required to refrain from senior appointments so as not to impose such choice on any duly-elected successor government. Significantly, Halevi was later forced to resign in ignominy following the disastrous failure of the IDF in October 2023, something that reflects poorly both on Lapid’s judgement and on his utter (dis)regard for democratic principles.

Golan: The Despotic “Democrat”

Probably the easiest choice of whom not to vote for is Yair Golan, a former IDF general and deputy Chief-of-Staff. Thus, despite a measure of personal charm and charisma, he has allowed his animus toward his political rivals to eradicate any constraints on his political rhetoric—providing Israel’s most vehement foes with ample affirmation for their vitriolic condemnation of the Jewish state. Thus, while still in uniform, he alleged outrageously that he could identify in Israeli society developments reminiscent of the “abhorrent processes that took place in Europe, and Germany in particular” in the 1930s, lending credence to those accusing Israel of being a “fascist state”. Later, as a deputy-minister in the short-lived Bennett-Lapid government, he himself adopted Nazi-like terminology, dubbing some of his fellow countrymen as “sub-human.”

In 2024, Golan gathered up the shreds of the far-Left Mertz faction and remains of the once-hegemonic Labor party in a new party under his leadership, perversely named “The Democrats”—as his political credo seems antithetical to anything “democratic”. Indeed, Golan has repeatedly threatened that if his party attained a position of power, it would shut down media channels and educational institutions, of whose political orientation he disapproves —all in the interests of “freedom of speech,” of course. The prospective targets of Golan’s future vindictiveness would, according to him, be the popular TV outlet Channel 14 and the legendary pre-military academy Eli, many of whose former students have given their lives and limbs in defense of the country in IDF combat units.

So, unless one is in favor of monolithic uniformity of thought and opinion, Yair Golan’s party is one to avoid.

Eisenkot: Exceptionally unequipped to PM post

Lastly, there is Gadi Eisenkot, currently the leading candidate to challenge Netanyahu for the premiership. Eisenkot, a former IDF Chief of Staff who served between 2015 and 2019, and together with his predecessors (Ehud Barak, Gabi Ashkenazi, Benny Gantz, Moshe Yaalon, Amnon Lipkin-Shachak) makes up half a dozen former IDF chiefs who tried—and failed to remove Netanyahu from power—sharply underscoring that military rank is a poor predictor of effective political leadership. Indeed, a wide swathe of opinion in Israel’s points to Eisenkot’s misguided doctrine of restraint and moderation in Gaza as creating the conditions that precipitated the disastrous events of October 2023. Moreover, after retiring from the IDF, he did little to dispel misgivings over his strategic judgement. Significantly, had his positions been accepted, the IDF would have been denied some of its most important achievements in Gaza, particularly regarding Rafah and the Philadelphia Route adjacent to the border with Egypt.

Today, even after all previous contenders have fallen by the wayside. Eisenkot is manifestly

devoid of the qualities to lead Israel in these challenging times—acutely lacking international stature, governmental experience, and language skills.

And this is hardly time for on-the-job training.

An uncluttered view

So dear reader, having discarded all of the foregoing options from your list –along with the multitude of micro-splinter parties that have little chance of passing the 3.25% electoral threshold—and of course, the dominantly Arab anti-Zionist factions, you should now have an uncluttered view of whom to choose from 38 (!) parties that have registered for next week’s poll.

Choose wisely!

©2026 Dr. Martin Sherman. All rights reserved.