Last week, Israelis across the country came together to mark the anniversary of the October 7, 2023 attack, the deadliest assault in the nation’s history. However, as the country prepares for national elections on October 27, sharp divisions persist over who is responsible for the failures that allowed the Hamas-led incursion and its aftermath.
The attack saw thousands of militants cross from Gaza, overrunning communities, military bases, and even a music festival. Israeli authorities reported approximately 1,200 people killed on their side, mostly civilians, with 251 taken hostage. Israel’s subsequent military response devastated Gaza, resulting in more than 74,000 deaths according to Gaza health officials, who do not differentiate between combatants and civilians. The conflict spread beyond Gaza’s borders, involving Lebanon and Iran, and remains unresolved three years later.
The political ramifications of the attack have been profound yet paradoxical. While many expected a seismic shift in Israeli politics, the electorate remains deeply polarized, holding onto established political positions. The upcoming election is seen by many as the most consequential since Israel’s founding nearly eighty years ago, shaped not only by security concerns but also by debates over the country’s democratic character.
Near the Gaza border, contrasting perspectives embody the broader national divide. In the liberal kibbutz of Nahal Oz, located less than a mile from the border, most residents plan to vote against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom they hold responsible for the security failures leading to the assault. Daniel Rahamim, a spokesman for the community and an attack survivor, emphasized a commitment to peace and voiced concern over the government’s moves to weaken judicial oversight and the growing influence of Ultra-Orthodox allies. The kibbutz voted overwhelmingly for centrist and left-leaning parties in the last election and appears likely to maintain that stance.
Just eight miles away in the working-class town of Sderot, the scene of intense fighting and significant loss of life, support for Netanyahu remains strong. Residents here largely reject criticism of the prime minister, blaming security officials for what they describe as a betrayal that left Netanyahu uninformed during the attack’s onset. Many in Sderot adhere to conspiracy theories promoted within Netanyahu’s right-wing faction, arguing that military and intelligence leaders failed to act appropriately. Shlomi Aragon, a local business owner, called Netanyahu “the war leader of a generation” and expressed confidence that the Israeli air force could have contained the invasion quickly if deployed sooner.
The Netanyahu-led coalition, Israel’s most right-wing and religiously conservative government to date, faces scrutiny from critics who accuse it of undermining democratic institutions and causing diplomatic isolation. Yet its supporters argue that security lapses preceding the attack were primarily due to failures within the intelligence and military apparatus rather than governmental policy. Netanyahu has resisted calls for an independent inquiry into the events leading up to October 7, citing national security concerns.
Surveys indicate a deeply divided electorate, with no clear path for either Netanyahu or his main rival, centrist former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, to form a governing majority. Despite broad agreement on the need for a robust military response and territorial operations in Gaza and neighboring regions, confidence in Netanyahu’s leadership is fractured. Many Israelis fear a repeat of the attack and remain wary of the ongoing conflict’s protracted nature.
In the border village of Kfar Aza, Yonatan Shamriz, who lost his brother in the October 7 events, founded a grassroots movement seeking political renewal based on the lessons of the attack. However, Shamriz recently withdrew from politics, citing public reluctance to embrace new leadership and a continued preference for established politicians and military figures.
As Israel approaches its election, the memory of October 7 remains vivid but sharply contested, revealing enduring political fault lines that the deadly assault has not bridged.