Israel is preparing to hold national elections on October 27, the first since the deadly Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, which resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,200 Israelis and the kidnapping of 251 others. The election comes amid widespread societal exhaustion and ongoing security concerns, with the contest expected to focus heavily on accountability for the attacks and the future leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Since Israel’s founding in 1948, the country has maintained a continuous state of emergency, reflecting decades of conflict and persistent security threats. This environment has fostered a culture of constant vigilance among Israelis, who regularly monitor news updates on regional developments and government actions. The recent war and its aftermath have intensified this state of alert, reshaping both public life and political discourse. Many citizens express a desire for respite from the relentless scrutiny but recognize the difficulty of escaping an almost perpetual condition of watchfulness.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has positioned himself as Israel’s main guardian against existential threats, emphasizing his early recognition of dangers such as Iran’s nuclear ambitions. In a 2014 speech, he attributed past failures to prevent the Holocaust to leaders’ inability to perceive threats in time, implying that under his leadership, Israel would avoid similar lapses. However, the events of October 7 have challenged this narrative, as questions remain about the government’s preparedness and response. Netanyahu has argued that he was not warned in time and placed blame on security officials for failing to alert him, asserting that if he had been awakened earlier, the outcome might have been different.
Contradictory reports have complicated this defense. According to some accounts, the president of the United Arab Emirates informed Netanyahu days before the attack about Hamas’s plans, a claim the prime minister denies and has sought to challenge legally. Israeli intelligence sources stated the warning was not conveyed to top security officials, and Netanyahu also rejected reports of prior notices from Egyptian authorities. Netanyahu’s main electoral opponent, former Israel Defense Forces chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot, highlighted the broader failure of communications among leadership by responding to Netanyahu’s defense with the question, “Who failed to wake whom?”
Beyond individual accountability, analysts point to strategic miscalculations underpinning the security failures. Israeli authorities had reportedly obtained detailed intelligence on Hamas’s operation well in advance and observed rehearsals of the attacks. Yet, longstanding policies that treated Hamas’s control of Gaza as manageable, partly sustained by Qatari funding, and the perceived benefit of Hamas’s rivalry with the Palestinian Authority, contributed to a complacency described by some as a “bubble of illusions.” Critics argue that no level of surveillance can substitute for adaptive governance that challenges assumptions and revises strategies based on intelligence.
The scale of violence inflicted on Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank during subsequent military operations, including widespread casualties, displacement, and restrictions on daily life, remains a significant and contentious aspect of the conflict’s aftermath. Reports indicate that Israeli military actions have caused tens of thousands of Palestinian casualties and severe disruptions, while violence by armed Israeli settlers against Palestinians, sometimes with complicity or direct involvement by soldiers, has also drawn attention.
Despite the emergency context and pressures of war, questions about accountability for the events of October 7 persist. The Israeli government has resisted calls for a state commission of inquiry similar to the Agranat Commission after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which ultimately preceded Prime Minister Golda Meir’s resignation. While the current crisis may delay full political reckoning, the upcoming election represents a moment for Israeli citizens to weigh how much scrutiny and oversight they demand of their government during a time when national security and political stability remain inextricably linked.
As Israel continues to navigate enduring security challenges, its citizens face the dilemma of balancing vigilance against the desire for a return to more ordinary governance. The election may not signal an end to the relentless watchfulness ingrained in Israeli society, but it will serve as a referendum on leadership during one of the nation’s most trying periods.