Netanyahu Reelection Hinges on Voters Forgiving Him for October 7

MERO Opinion

An election held three years after the deadliest single day in Israel’s history cannot avoid functioning as a verdict on that day, and the campaign has organized itself around that unavoidable fact. Netanyahu Reelection prospects rest less on the government’s tactical achievements abroad than on whether voters are willing to separate the war’s later successes from the failures that preceded them.

The prime minister has refused a state commission of inquiry, a decision that converts accountability from a procedural question into a ballot question. Reservists who have served hundreds of days are asking why haredi exemptions survive while their own obligations multiply. The economy has absorbed the costs of a multi-front campaign whose gains are real but whose sustainability is contested. Abroad, Israel’s standing has eroded in ways that constrain its diplomacy.

The structural mechanism is straightforward. Netanyahu Reelection depends on assembling sixty-one seats from a fractured Knesset, which means satisfying religious parties whose constituents do not serve, far-right parties whose agendas narrow the government’s options, and a public that increasingly believes the October failures require consequences. Each constituency pulls in a different direction, and the coalition arithmetic that once held them together now strains under three years of war.

Gadi Eisenkot offers an alternative built on military credibility and service equity, but his path to a majority requires Arab party support that his own coalition conditions complicate. The result is a contest in which the incumbent’s weakness and the challenger’s constraints reinforce each other, leaving neither with a clear route to stable government.

The institutional constraint is the inquiry commission. Refusing one keeps the question alive, ensuring that October 7 remains the campaign’s organizing principle rather than a closed chapter. Trump’s endorsement may stabilize the prime minister’s base without resolving the underlying question of responsibility. Voters are being asked to weigh security gains against accountability deficits, and the answer will shape not only who governs but what the state demands of its citizens in the wars to come. Forgiveness, in this context, is not a private sentiment but a political calculation with consequences that extend well beyond the ballot.

Abstract

Israel’s election functions as a referendum on October 7, weighing Netanyahu’s wartime gains against refused accountability, haredi service exemptions, economic strain, and eroded global standing, while Eisenkot’s challenge tests whether coalition arithmetic can deliver the change voters appear to want.

Netanyahu Reelection Becomes October 7 Referendum

Next week, Israelis will go to the polls in what will arguably be the most important election in the Jewish state’s 78-year history.

It is the first electoral contest since the horrific events of October 7, 2023, in which Palestinian terror group Hamas massacred more than 1,200 Israelis, most of them civilians, and kidnapped 251 others. As such, the October 27 election will serve as a referendum on the political leadership that presided over that terrible day, and that has continued to steward the country since.

Naturally, a key issue on the ballot is accountability. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been a fixture of Israeli politics for well over a generation, and was in office on October 7. However, he has so far refused to allow the creation of a state commission of inquiry, instead seeking to stage-manage the process of examining the errors that occurred under his watch. This intransigence has created major resentment among the Israeli public, a large segment of which believes the premier and other officials are seeking to skirt responsibility for their roles in the failures of intelligence, security and governance that took place that day.

Why Accountability Still Haunts the Campaign

Another precipitating factor is military participation. Since the founding of the state, Israel’s military has followed the doctrine espoused by the country’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion, of fighting short, decisive conflicts. The national army has long been structured accordingly; it currently has fewer than 170,000 active-duty servicemen, augmented by a large reserve force of nearly half a million personnel. This state of affairs has generated tremendous strain on the Israeli body politic in the three years since October 7, 2023, with reservists forced to undertake hundreds of days of active duty service as a result of Israel’s ongoing (and resource-intensive) campaigns against Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iran itself.

Haredi Exemptions Strain the Reserve Army

Meanwhile, Israel’s ultra-Orthodox (haredi) community continues to enjoy broad exemptions from service as a result of historic government decisions. At the same time, Netanyahu’s ruling coalition (which is dominated by far-right religious parties) has worked diligently to preserve those despite growing pressure from Israeli society. The result is a political cleavage in which Israel’s ultra-Orthodox are seen as something resembling “free riders” on the Israeli system—leading to a significant worsening of societal tensions.

War Costs Test Economic Sustainability

Another factor on the ballot will be sustainability. The three years since October 7, 2023, have seen Israel wage a multi-front war against Hamas, Hezbollah, other Iranian proxies in both Iraq and Yemen, and against the Islamic Republic. And, as a result of a range of tactical and strategic successes, Israel is now unquestionably in a stronger regional position. But that perpetual campaign has come at a high cost. It has hurt the national economy, whose growth and outlook, according to the International Monetary Fund, are now well below its pre-October 7 trajectory.

Reputationally, meanwhile, the war in Gaza—coupled with rampant foreign disinformation and propaganda from Iran and other sources—has helped sour attitudes toward Israel globally, including in the United States. As a result, the Israeli election will also be about the sustainability of the strategy pursued by the Jewish state in the years ahead.

Can Eisenkot Assemble a Majority

These factors have created broad consensus in Israeli society that Netanyahu must be replaced as head of government. However, doing so is difficult, both because of Netanyahu’s proven staying power in Israeli politics and because Israel’s fractious political system inevitably requires coalition-building to form a government. At present, Netanyahu’s main challenger, former IDF chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot and his “Yashar” party, lead most polls, but not decisively. Nevertheless, many hope Eisenkot can at least cobble together a minority government (with backing from the country’s Arab parties) and enact the needed reforms to set the country on a fundamentally new course.

Trump Endorsement Tilts a Close Race

That doesn’t seem to be what the United States wants, though. After weeks of refraining from officially endorsing an Israeli candidate, President Donald Trump unequivocally threw his weight behind Netanyahu on October 18, calling him an excellent wartime president and a true “partner for peace.”

Netanyahu Reelection Hinges on Forgiveness

Trump’s backing is bound to be impactful, in part because most Israelis are worried over the current, unsettled state of play vis-à-vis Iran, and hold out hope that the United States—ideally in partnership with Israel—will break the current geopolitical stalemate. But whether it proves decisive in swaying an electorate that is still, at bottom, seeking answers for the tragedy of October 7 remains to be seen.

Author:Ilan Berman

Source:National Interest