Netanyahu's Election Strategy and October 7th Response Under Scrutiny

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's election campaign strategy reportedly hinges on two main points: blaming others for the failures leading up to the October 7th Hamas attacks and claiming he was not alerted in time. However, an examination of the timeline surrounding the attacks contradicts Netanyahu's assertion that an earlier awakening would have drastically altered the outcome. Evidence suggests he was disoriented and possibly unresponsive even after becoming aware of the events.

Reports indicate that Netanyahu wasted time on trivial matters and delayed crucial consultations with top security officials, including the IDF Chief of Staff and the head of the Shin Bet. This delay prevented him from issuing potentially decisive orders. The article draws parallels to past Israeli leaders like Golda Meir and Yitzhak Rabin, who, despite facing crises, took responsibility and recovered, often in positive directions.

Discrepancies exist regarding Netanyahu's departure time from his home in Caesarea on October 7th. While his office claims he left at 7:30 AM, a video shows his convoy in Tel Aviv near his home at 7:51 AM. The article dismisses the precise timing of calls or meetings as less important than the perceived inadequacy of the Prime Minister's response to the crisis.

Netanyahu is described as a master of "pixels," focusing on minute details to obscure the larger picture and present himself as blameless. His response to the October 7th attacks is criticized not for potential shock or collapse, but for prioritizing image management over offering compassion, direction, or a plan of action. His initial public appearance is characterized as emotionally detached.

The article further questions Netanyahu's handling of intelligence and warnings prior to October 7th, citing reports of his alleged dismissal of security assessments, including a phone call with the UAE President, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who reportedly warned of the situation in Gaza. Netanyahu has vehemently denied this conversation, though his aide's response was reportedly contradictory. The article suggests that Netanyahu's resistance to a state commission of inquiry stems from a fear that such an investigation would expose his direct responsibility for the failures.

Ultimately, the piece argues that Netanyahu's approach, both before and after October 7th, has been characterized by a preference for managing chaos to maintain his political survival, rather than addressing the underlying issues or seeking resolution. This strategy, it suggests, involves fragmenting investigations and focusing on minor details to avoid accountability for the "greatest failure" in Israel's history.