How to Beat Netanyahu: Focus on the Future, Not Just Past Scandals

As Israel approaches a potential election on October 27, the political landscape is dominated by speculation about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's ability to retain his position, despite most polls suggesting a low probability. Both Netanyahu and his political rivals, including figures like Gantz and his allies, view the upcoming 2026 elections as critical for the nation's future, each framing their campaign narratives differently. Gantz's camp emphasizes the failures of October 7 and the Haredi issue as central campaign themes. Netanyahu, conversely, highlights achievements during the "War of Return" while attempting to minimize his responsibility for the initial failures. The opposition points to statements by former Military Secretary Avi Gill as definitive proof of Netanyahu's failure, especially given claims that Netanyahu was warned twice about an impending attack.

The Gantz camp also continues to propagate claims of corruption and lack of integrity within Netanyahu's circle, citing attempts to falsify protocols and Netanyahu's presentation of an incomplete picture regarding the October 7 failures in the State Comptroller's report. While the opposition's claims are debatable, Avi Gill's testimony reinforces the security system's failure on that day. However, questions arise when analyzing both sides' arguments. Despite Netanyahu's policy towards Hamas, which aimed to avoid conflict that could jeopardize normalization with Saudi Arabia, he reportedly received information about the attack's signs only after it began. Unlike the lead-up to the Yom Kippur War, where Golda Meir was involved in decision-making and could have ordered a preemptive strike, Netanyahu was not given the opportunity to influence events that night.

Further scrutiny is directed at the alleged attempt to alter the time of a crucial conversation in the protocol from 6:40 AM to 6:29 AM. The opposition suggests this was done to support a conspiracy theory of a generals' revolt, implying Netanyahu's associates tried to show he was intentionally kept unaware. An alternative explanation is that the change aimed to demonstrate Netanyahu was awake as Hamas terrorists infiltrated Gaza border communities. If the intention was to portray him as being deliberately uninformed by generals, leaving the time at 6:40 AM would have supported the argument that he was updated only 11 minutes after the attack began.

Additionally, despite a strained relationship between Netanyahu and security chiefs over his demand to eradicate draft refusal rather than contain it, claims suggest he ignored their warnings about the implications of legislation and the threat to national security, as well as their non-specific alerts about an impending war. Conversely, some argue that if the IDF had acted against draft refusal as it did during the Gaza disengagement, Sinwar and Dahaf might have reconsidered their attack. The article also questions why, if security leaders issued warnings of war, the IDF was unprepared on October 7.

In conclusion, Netanyahu has been in a continuous election campaign since 2022, intensified after October 7. The focus on protocol falsification and Netanyahu's inner circle may not be the key to electoral victory. The Israeli public, historically, has shown little interest in political corruption, citing examples like Aryeh Deri leading Shas to 17 seats after a bribery conviction, Ariel Sharon leading Likud to 38 seats amid a corruption cloud, and Netanyahu consistently securing over 30 seats while under indictment. To defeat Netanyahu, the opposition should focus on convincing the public of a better future for Israel, rather than dwelling on the past.