A Final Verdict on Netanyahu?

OPINION BY: Hem Kumar October 2026

October 7, Three Years On:  Will Israel’s Election  Test Netanyahu’s Political Survival

On that day, Hamas militants killed more than 1,200 Israelis and foreign nationals and abducted 251 people. It was a national trauma of historic magnitude: a devastating collapse of intelligence, deterrence, border security, and political judgment in a country long regarded as among the world’s most security-conscious states.

The catastrophe set off a war in Gaza whose human, political, and diplomatic consequences have reshaped the Middle East and profoundly damaged Israel’s standing across much of the world. Gaza has suffered mass killing, displacement, destruction of civilian infrastructure, hunger, disease, and a deepening humanitarian crisis.

Even under a ceasefire, civilians remain trapped in overcrowded displacement sites with inadequate water, sanitation, shelter, and medical care. The guns may be quieter than at the height of the war, but the suffering has not ended.

For Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the election expected later this month may be the closest thing to a public referendum on his leadership since the attacks. 

The voters will be asked, directly or indirectly, whether Israel’s longest-serving prime minister bears responsibility for the failures that made October 7 possible. They will also judge his government’s response: the scale and conduct of the Gaza war, the hostages crisis, the breakdown in Israel’s international relationships, the growth of internal polarization, and the risks created by an increasingly volatile confrontation with Iran.

A Failure That Cannot Be Explained Away

October 7 was not merely a military failure. It represented a profound failure of national leadership.

For years, Netanyahu presented himself as Israel’s indispensable guardian: the experienced statesman uniquely equipped to confront Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and the wider threats surrounding the country. His political brand was built on security. Yet under his watch, Hamas was able to prepare and execute the deadliest assault on Israeli civilians in the country’s history.

Serious questions remain about how Israel’s political and military establishment missed repeated warning signs, why defenses along the Gaza border were inadequate, and whether strategic decisions weakened Israel’s readiness. Netanyahu’s coalition had prioritized settlement expansion and West Bank security at a time when the threat from Gaza required clear-eyed vigilance. His government was also consumed by bitter internal conflict, particularly over judicial changes that triggered historic protests and raised concerns about the cohesion and readiness of the country’s reserve forces.

Recent reports alleging that regional leaders warned Netanyahu of a potential Hamas operation—claims he has strongly denied—add another layer to an already devastating record. Whether every allegation is ultimately substantiated or not, the larger fact is beyond dispute: October 7 happened on Netanyahu’s watch, after he had spent years telling Israelis that he was the leader best able to prevent exactly such a catastrophe.

No political messaging can erase that question from the ballot box.

Gaza and the Cost of Overreach

Israel had every right to defend its citizens, recover hostages, and pursue those responsible for the October 7  atrocities. Hamas committed an atrocity that deserved unequivocal condemnation.

But a state’s right to self-defense does not eliminate its obligations under international humanitarian law. Nor does it absolve leaders from weighing whether military tactics are advancing long-term national security or multiplying future threats.

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, Israel received an extraordinary wave of sympathy from much of the world. That sympathy has since eroded dramatically, particularly as images and reports from Gaza documented immense civilian suffering and widespread destruction.

The comparison to the United States after September 11 is unavoidable. America was attacked, mourned, and initially supported by much of the international community. But its later wars, especially Iraq, carried enormous human costs, destabilized the region, weakened America’s moral standing, and left long-term consequences that still reverberate.

Israel faced a similar danger after October 7: that justified anger and legitimate self-defense could become an open-ended conflict with no viable political end state. Three years later, that danger appears painfully real. Gaza remains devastated. Hamas has not been replaced by a credible governing alternative. Palestinian civilian life has been shattered. Israel’s international isolation has deepened. And the conditions that fuel extremism have not disappeared.

A military campaign can destroy infrastructure and eliminate commanders. It cannot, on its own, create a durable political settlement.

The Global Fallout

The Gaza war has changed how Israel is viewed around the world. In many countries, public attitudes have shifted sharply against the Israeli government, especially among younger voters. Questions once confined to the margins of international debate—over occupation, settlements, Palestinian statehood, accountability, and alleged war crimes—now occupy mainstream political discourse.

At the same time, it is neither antisemitic nor illegitimate to scrutinize the conduct of the Israeli state, challenge its military policies, or demand accountability where credible evidence of violations exists. Treating every criticism of Israel as antisemitism blurs an essential distinction and weakens the fight against genuine anti-Jewish hatred.

That distinction matters now more than ever. Democratic societies must be able to oppose antisemitism unequivocally while also insisting that all governments, including Israel’s, comply with the law and protect civilian life.

Israel’s Verdict

Israelis will enter the voting booth carrying grief, anger, fear, and profoundly different visions of their country’s future.

For Netanyahu’s supporters, he remains an experienced leader confronting a hostile region, an emboldened Iran, and enemies committed to Israel’s destruction. They will argue that Israel cannot afford political instability at a time of war and regional uncertainty.

For his opponents, Netanyahu has become inseparable from the failures of October 7, the breakdown of public trust, the hostage crisis, the corrosive polarization of Israeli society, and the absence of a credible postwar strategy for Gaza. They will argue that Israel cannot rebuild security, national cohesion, or international credibility while refusing to confront the failures of the government that presided over the nation’s darkest day.

That is why this election matters.

It is not simply a contest between Likud and its centrist challengers, or between Benjamin Netanyahu and Gadi Eisenkot. It is a contest over whether Israel will hold its leaders accountable for a failure of historic proportions—and whether it can chart a path beyond permanent war, permanent insecurity, and permanent division.

At the polls, Israelis will have their opportunity to render a judgment. The question is whether that judgment will produce accountability—or merely another stalemate in a country still struggling to decide what kind of future it wants after October 7.