On Tuesday, Israelis will vote in national elections for the fourth time since 2019. Although a large number of parties are running, connected by a web of mergers, splits, and potential coalition agreements, the real question is this: should Benjamin Netanyahu, in power for eleven years, retain the premiership? Benny Avni weighs the pros and cons, beginning with the cons:

Can a man lead a country while facing serious court cases against him? Netanyahu has been indicted in three cases involving alleged bribery, fraud. and breach of trust. Wouldn’t he be more concerned with staying out of jail than with the welfare and safety of Israeli citizens?

To . . . that, add Netanyahu’s new political bedfellows. As the election neared, the prime minister orchestrated a unity deal between two far-right factions. Their new party, Otzma Yehudit (“Jewish might”), is led by Betzalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, and is widely considered a scion of the [party founded by] the late Meir Kahane, who was assassinated in New York in 1990. . . . Giving a political hekhsher to a faction considered too odious for most Israelis, though, looks too cynical for even some of Netanyahu’s most avid supporters.

So yes, it’s difficult to make a case for a man who clings to power while facing allegations that could land him in prison. Netanyahu would stop at nothing, including alliances with Israel’s worst elements, to achieve that goal. Why would anyone even consider voting for him?

But there are many answers to that question, writes Avni, including the relative peace and prosperity during Netanyahu’s tenure in office, the flourishing diplomatic ties with many formerly hostile or indifferent countries—especially Arab ones—and his success in securing vaccines for the coronavirus:

Bibi’s Israel has become attractive not only for its modern, easygoing lifestyle, innovation, military capabilities, and great beaches. Its economy is a magnet to investors, largely because of Netanyahu’s insistence on turning away from the rigid socialism of Israel’s founders and replacing it with a free economy boosted by a social safety net. The country’s mandatory but competitive HMO-based health-insurance system, which enabled the vaccination effort, is one example of this hybrid economic model.

By now Netanyahu’s once-revolutionary ideas have become widely accepted by mainstream politicians. His competitors rarely stray radically from his [platform of a] free economy, skepticism of Palestinian propaganda, and security-oriented style of governing. Instead, they promise Bibi-less Bibi-ism.

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.