There has undoubtedly been precious little statesmanship lately from male Israeli leaders. But Israel’s leadership should not be about gender equality and cuteness. It is about leadership of a country facing daunting challenges, an uncertain future and a crisis-ridden neighbourhood. Do Israelis wish to choose the person in charge of tackling the incoming political tidal wave based on whether it establishes a precedent in affirmative action? Or is it about who best can navigate Israel through the gathering storm?

The same is true for America. European literati may wish the next leader of the free world to be defined by popularity abroad. But winning the White House is not a popularity contest. Americans are not electing Miss America, and the leader of the free world needs not to be defined as the “most popular” but as the “most powerful” politician in the world. We should be clear what this is about. It is not about being the best face for Time, but the best commander-in-chief for the coming wars.

Israel and America both appear to be on the brink of choosing a popular, good-looking, congenial leader who is all about feel-good change — an African-American who would make Americans feel they have solved their race problem once and for all and a woman who would make Israelis feel they have placed femininity at the helm of a nation-in-arms. Both would elect a leader on account of affirming a principle — gender and race equality — and on behalf of a wider constituency that is driven by likeability, not leadership.