Three Years After October 7, Netanyahu's Legacy Divides Israel as Election Looms

Three years after the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks that shattered Israel's sense of security, the political aftershocks of that day continue to reshape the country's leadership landscape. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has dominated Israeli politics for much of the past three decades, now finds himself at the center of a deeply polarized national reckoning as voters prepare to head to the polls.

The scars from that day remain raw across Israeli society. The assault, which caught Israel's military and intelligence establishment by surprise, left communities in the south devastated and set off a war that has since reshaped the region. For many Israelis, the question of who bears responsibility for the failures of October 7 has become inseparable from the question of who should lead the country next.

According to reporting from France 24, the anniversary has reignited long-simmering disputes over Netanyahu's role in the events leading up to the attack. Critics argue that his government's policies, including the focus on other fronts and the political turmoil that preceded the assault, contributed to the country's vulnerability. Supporters counter that the blame lies with military and intelligence officials who misread the threat, and they credit Netanyahu with steering the country through the subsequent war.

Those competing narratives have produced a political environment that is as fractured as any in Israel's recent history. The debate does not break cleanly along traditional left-right lines. Instead, it cuts across families, communities, and even the military reservist networks that formed during the war, creating alliances and ruptures that are reshaping party politics.

Video testimony from former hostages has added an emotional dimension to the national debate. As France 24 reported, a former Israeli hostage spoke to the network about the experience of captivity, an account that underscores the human stakes behind the political arguments. Such testimonies have become a recurring feature of public discourse in Israel, keeping the fate of those still held in Gaza and the memory of those killed in the foreground of the election campaign.

The commemorations themselves have become contested spaces. Sites associated with the October 7 massacre have drawn visitors seeking to remember and to process their grief, as France 24 reported in its coverage of the anniversary. But even these acts of remembrance are not immune to politics, with disagreements over who should speak, what should be said, and how the day should be officially marked.

At the same time, three years on, questions persist over what Netanyahu knew in the hours and days before the attack. France 24 noted that those questions remain unresolved in the public mind, despite multiple investigations and the passage of time. The lack of definitive answers has allowed both his defenders and his opponents to advance their own interpretations, prolonging a debate that shows few signs of resolution.

The divisions over Netanyahu are not merely about history. They are also about the future direction of Israeli policy, including the conduct of the war, the fate of the hostages, and the country's relationships with its allies. Voters will effectively be asked to decide whether the current leadership deserves another term or whether October 7 marks a rupture significant enough to demand a change at the top.

For Netanyahu's supporters, the prime minister remains the most experienced and capable figure to navigate a dangerous regional environment. They point to his long record in office and argue that replacing him mid-conflict would project weakness and invite further aggression. In their view, the election is a choice between continuity and chaos.

Opponents see it differently. They contend that the failures of October 7 are symptomatic of deeper problems in how the government has functioned, including the concentration of decision-making power and the prioritization of political survival over national security. For them, a change in leadership is a precondition for restoring public trust and learning the lessons of the attack.

The electoral map reflects this divide. Israel's fragmented party system means that no single bloc is assured of victory, and coalition arithmetic will likely determine the outcome. That gives outsized influence to smaller parties and to leaders who can position themselves as either the natural heir to Netanyahu or the standard-bearer of a post-Netanyahu era.

Regional and international factors will also weigh on voters. The war that followed October 7 has drawn in multiple actors, including Hezbollah in Lebanon and Houthi forces in Yemen, and has tested Israel's alliances. The manner in which the next government manages those relationships will shape the country's security and diplomatic standing for years to come.

Domestically, the anniversary has intensified a broader conversation about accountability. Families of victims and hostages have organized, demanding answers and sometimes directly challenging the prime minister. Their activism has injected a moral urgency into the campaign that transcends ordinary policy debates.

As Israelis prepare to vote, the October 7 anniversary serves as both a memorial and a mirror. It reflects a nation still struggling to come to terms with a catastrophic failure, and it magnifies the divisions over who should carry the responsibility for preventing the next one. The outcome of the election will not settle those divisions, but it will determine whose vision guides the country as it continues to grapple with their consequences.