What we are currently witnessing in France and other parts of Europe demonstrates that the world has spent too many years discovering the cost of refusing to confront extremism until it becomes impossible to ignore.
When democratic leaders hesitate to defend their societies, excuse intimidation or treat ideological aggression as a misunderstanding, they create opportunities for those who regard compromise as weakness.
Israel understands the consequences better than most countries. That is why Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership matters beyond its borders, and why I believe his continued leadership is especially important now.
The threat must be described accurately. Islamist extremism is a political ideology that seeks power through coercion, repression and, in its most violent expressions, terrorism.
Its victims include Muslims who reject its demands, alongside Jews, Christians and others. Confronting that ideology requires defending religious freedom and democratic government with equal determination. Leaders who cannot distinguish between protecting peaceful believers and challenging extremists leave everyone less secure.
Netanyahu’s defining strategic contribution has been his insistence that the Islamic Republic of Iran’s regime’s ambitions cannot safely be compartmentalized. Its nuclear program, missile capabilities and support for armed proxies belong within the same assessment of its power and intentions.
For years, he challenged the assumption that diplomatic arrangements could provide lasting security without credible enforcement and a willingness to act. Whatever disagreements one has with him, that warning deserves serious consideration.
The joint American Israeli strikes against Iran last year and earlier this year demonstrated that cooperation between the two countries can extend beyond declarations to consequential military action.
President Donald Trump’s recent endorsement of Netanyahu explicitly emphasized their partnership against Iran. This close cooperation reflects a strategic reality: confronting a determined adversary requires both capability and political resolve.
Military power alone, however, cannot provide a durable regional order. The Abraham Accords, achieved under Trump and Netanyahu in 2020, offered another essential instrument: diplomatic relations built around shared interests, economic opportunity and recognition.
They challenged the assumption that Israel must remain indefinitely excluded from its neighborhood. Their significance lies in establishing relationships through which governments can pursue cooperation even while disagreeing on difficult questions.
That achievement also exposes the emptiness of portraying opposition to Islamist extremism as hostility toward the Muslim world.
Israel’s future depends partly on partnerships with Muslim countries that seek stability and prosperity. A serious conservative foreign policy should welcome those partnerships while refusing to indulge organizations that use religion to justify violence. Strength must create room for practical diplomacy, and diplomacy must protect the security that makes cooperation possible.
Netanyahu’s emphasis on widening Israel’s international relationships belongs within that same approach.
In presenting his security doctrine, he highlighted India and opportunities in Latin America, alongside the importance of strengthening the American alliance. The underlying principle is sound: Israel should cultivate relationships that reflect its value as a security, technological and economic partner, while preparing for changes in other countries’ governments and priorities.
For democracies elsewhere, the relevant lesson concerns standards of leadership. A politician’s appealing domestic agenda cannot erase questions about support for terrorism, tolerance of antisemitism or rejection of Israel’s right to exist.
Those positions deserve scrutiny wherever they appear. Party loyalty should never become an excuse for overlooking them, and opposition to extremism should never depend on whether confronting it is convenient for a particular political coalition.
The same standard applies to public order.
Peaceful protest is a democratic right; threatening people, celebrating attacks on civilians and using violence to silence opponents are abuses of that freedom. Governments should enforce the law consistently and protect those facing intimidation. When leaders allow the loudest or most aggressive activists to determine whose rights receive protection, they undermine the democratic principles they claim to defend.
Supporting Netanyahu does not require pretending that his record is beyond criticism. My argument is that his experience, his understanding of the Iranian threat and his capacity to work with Washington remain substantial assets at a moment of exceptional danger.
Israel’s election will be decided by Israelis, but its consequences will reach beyond them. Allies and adversaries will assess the next government’s resolve, judgment and ability to sustain partnerships.
No result guarantees peace and security, and no leader can eliminate every threat. Yet leadership influences whether aggression encounters resistance, whether agreements carry credibility and whether friends can rely on one another when circumstances become difficult.
I believe Israel needs Netanyahu now because those qualities matter urgently. The wider world also needs leaders like Netanyahu who are prepared to defend democratic values without embarrassment, confront terrorism without euphemism and pursue peace without abandoning deterrence.
Conviction must be matched by judgment and responsibility. At this dangerous moment, Netanyahu offers the experience and determination to make that combination count for Israel and its partners alike.
The writer is a Los-Angeles based philanthropist and real-estate developer who serves as chairman of the Abraham Accords Roundtable and Golda Meir Commemorative Coin Committee in Washington DC.