The Israeli election is not merely a domestic dispute over coalition arithmetic; it is a test of whether a sovereign state can remain secure when its fate rests with parties outside the national consensus. The same week reveals Ottawa’s willingness to meddle in American elections and Vladimir Putin’s refusal to negotiate in good faith. Together, these developments show that liberty and sovereignty are not protected by diplomatic goodwill but by governments that refuse to outsource their defense, their borders, or their electoral integrity.
In Israel, Arab-majority parties are positioned to become kingmakers in a Knesset where neither Netanyahu’s coalition nor the opposition holds a clear majority. Arab-Israeli voters constitute roughly 20 percent of the population, and the Supreme Court recently rejected an attempt to disqualify Arab-majority lists from the ballot.
Opposition figures such as Gadi Eisenkot have refused to ally with these parties, citing a lack of shared values, while Netanyahu has warned that a government dependent on Arab support would be dangerous.
The backdrop includes the October 7 Hamas-led terror attacks, the war in Gaza, and a spike in gang-related violence and record-high murder rates within Arab communities that critics say the government has failed to curb. A coalition beholden to factions that reject the state’s security priorities cannot be trusted to wage war or restore law and order.
Canada, supposedly a close ally, is acting like an adversary. The U.S. Embassy in Ottawa has issued a formal fact sheet accusing Canadian officials of plotting to influence the American midterm elections through targeted trade retaliation and political maneuvering.
Industry Minister Mélanie Joly has admitted meeting with U.S. governors and potential presidential candidates to shape election outcomes, while Ontario Premier Doug Ford has pushed tariffs aimed at states politically significant to the Trump administration.
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government dismisses the evidence as mere defensiveness, yet its own officials have documented their intentions. When an allied nation uses tariffs and open coordination to tilt an American election, it is violating U.S. sovereignty as surely as any foreign intelligence operation.
Moscow offers the third example. U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff has held discussions in Oslo and St. Petersburg in pursuit of peace under President Trump’s direction, yet the Kremlin has dismissed European and Ukrainian proposals as lacking utility.
Putin is not pressed by diplomacy; he is banking on the strain on Ukraine’s air defenses and the onset of winter to force submission. Russian officials have praised Trump’s willingness to engage as a departure from the previous status quo, and the prospect of a Trump-Putin-Xi meeting at the Apec summit only gives Putin more room to dictate terms.
An adversary that senses no cost for intransigence will never trade conquest for compromise.
The common thread is accountability. A government that depends on kingmakers who reject its security framework is not accountable to its own citizens. An ally that openly coordinates to influence the outcome of another nation’s election is not accountable to the democratic process it claims to respect.
And a strongman who stalls peace talks while his adversaries exhaust themselves is accountable only to his own ambition. Liberty, law and order, and national sovereignty all require the same thing: leaders who answer to their own people and who refuse to let foreign or factional interests decide their fate.
Washington should treat these moments as a single strategic challenge. It must back an Israeli government capable of maintaining security without being held hostage by factions outside the national consensus. It must make clear to Ottawa that election meddling by a supposed ally will carry consequences, not polite dismissals.
And it must keep pressure on Putin rather than offering concessions that reward his delay. Sovereignty is not preserved through multilateral goodwill or backroom deals; it is preserved by governments willing to act unilaterally in their own defense.
Tags