Former Israeli War Minister Accuses Netanyahu of Lying Over October 7 Failures
According to the International Desk of Webangah News Agency, the political and security crisis in Israel following October 7, 2023, has not subsided but rather entered a more profound and volatile phase. Initially framed as an unprecedented military and intelligence failure, the event has now devolved into an all-out war over narrative and responsibility, pitting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant in an open confrontation rooted in the regime’s legitimacy crisis.
The October 7 operation by Palestinian resistance forces from Gaza shattered one of Israel’s most crucial security myths. Beyond breaching defensive and intelligence lines, the attack forced the Israeli society to confront how such an assault was possible and who bore responsibility. As the conflict drags on without the realization of stated objectives, these accountability questions have returned with greater force.
The rift between Netanyahu and Gallant stems directly from this defeat. While many military commanders and intelligence officials have accepted their roles, Netanyahu has refused to take direct responsibility, attempting instead to shift blame onto army decisions and previous cabinets. This approach has deepened the schism between the government and the security establishment. Gallant, serving as Defense Minister at the time, was positioned uniquely, privy to internal cabinet realities and Netanyahu’s management style. Though disagreements existed before October 7, they escalated to an undeniable level, culminating in Gallant’s dismissal late in 2024.
The latest flashpoint was ignited by Netanyahu’s release of a 55-page document aimed at solidifying his version of events leading up to October 7, positioning himself as a hardline figure warning against Hamas. Observers widely viewed this document as a clear effort to project blame elsewhere. In his narrative, Netanyahu implicated the military and security institutions while implicitly suggesting previous governments were responsible for the current state, claiming certain officials had opposed decisive action against Hamas.
Gallant’s response was sharp and unprecedented. In a televised interview, he explicitly called Netanyahu a liar, stating that the Prime Minister was focused on his own political survival while Israeli soldiers were dying in the field. These statements sent shockwaves through Israeli society, illustrating the depth of the divide between political elites and security leadership. Gallant asserted that the document’s publication was a calculated maneuver to incite public opinion against army commanders and internal security agencies, accusing Netanyahu of pitting cabinet ministers against military leaders to deflect blame for the failure.
Gallant also highlighted contradictions between Netanyahu’s public rhetoric and his actual decisions, claiming the Prime Minister did not even support the assassination of Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. This assertion painted a picture of a leader whose aggressive public posture masked personal political considerations taking priority in strategic decisions. Furthermore, Gallant addressed the policy of transferring funds to Gaza, stressing that this policy proceeded with Netanyahu’s explicit approval, making the Prime Minister responsible for its eventual consequences.
The issue of entering Rafah was another critical point of contention. Netanyahu claimed delays in the operation were due to army concerns, a claim Gallant refuted, asserting that Netanyahu prioritizes himself, then his government, and finally Israel. Gallant also dismissed Netanyahu’s assertion regarding US involvement as the cause of ammunition shortages, confirming that while Washington might have imposed some restrictions, this was not the reason for troop casualties.
Gallant’s breaking of his silence at this juncture is not coincidental, as Israel faces a highly polarized political climate ahead of elections, with polls indicating significant public desire for Netanyahu’s departure. In this atmosphere, the battle over narratives takes on heightened importance. By entering the fray, Gallant has positioned himself as an insider witness.
Joining the criticism, opposition leader Yair Lapid questioned how the Prime Minister could have been unaware of the impending danger. These coordinated criticisms reveal that the October 7 crisis has become a major factor driving disunity in Israeli politics.
What is currently unfolding in Israel is a struggle over collective memory and historical accountability. Many are comparing the current crisis to the aftermath of the 1973 war, though they believe the blow of October 7 is deeper and more enduring. This failure has severely damaged the image of the Israeli military and political leadership, driving public trust to its lowest level. The central question remains: which narrative will ultimately resonate within Israeli society, and who will pay the heavy price for the regime’s most significant historical defeat?
