AhlulBayt News Agency: Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Galant, two key figures in Israel, have confronted each other in an unprecedented battle over refusing to take responsibility for the October 7, 2023, defeat.
The political and security crisis in the Occupied Territories following October 7, 2023, has not only failed to subside but, over time, has entered a deeper and more tense phase. What initially emerged as an unprecedented military and intelligence failure has now turned into a full-blown confrontation over narrative and responsibility. At the center of this clash are two main figures: Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, and Yoav Galant, former war minister of the Zionist regime.
October 7, 2023, was not merely a bloody day for Israel; it marked the collapse of one of its most significant security myths. The Palestinian resistance operation not only shattered Israel’s defensive and intelligence lines but also raised the question of responsibility for this defeat in the Israeli public consciousness.
Beginning of the rift: From the cabinet to dismissal
The dispute between Netanyahu and Galant was born out of this very defeat. While many military commanders and intelligence officials accepted responsibility for the failures of October 7, 2023, Netanyahu refused to take any direct responsibility, attempting instead to attribute the defeat to the decisions of the army and previous cabinets. Galant, who was Israel’s war minister at the time, found himself in a delicate position. Tensions between the two existed even before October 7, but Galant’s dismissal in late 2024 became a turning point in this process and marked the beginning of an open confrontation.
The 55-page document: Netanyahu’s attempt to rewrite history
The latest spark in this dispute was ignited by the release of a 55-page document by Netanyahu. In it, he sought to cement his own narrative of the events leading up to October 7. By selectively publishing portions of security and political meeting minutes, Netanyahu portrayed himself as a vigilant and tough-minded politician against Hamas, while accusing others of underestimating the threats. Observers argue that the document was not a transparent account but rather a clear attempt at deflection. In this narrative, Netanyahu once again placed the blame on the army and security institutions.
Galant: Netanyahu is a liar
Galant’s response to this document was sharp and unprecedented. In a television interview, he openly called Netanyahu a “liar,” saying that while Israeli soldiers were giving their lives on the battlefield, the prime minister was focused on saving his own political standing. Galant emphasized that the release of the document was a calculated move to sway public opinion against army commanders and internal security agencies. He accused Netanyahu of turning cabinet ministers against military leaders in order to shift the responsibility for the defeat away from himself.
Rafah: Another turning point in the dispute
The issue of the Rafah operation became another sensitive flashpoint in the disagreement. Netanyahu claimed that delays in the operation were due to the army’s concerns, but Galant rejected this, stating that the main reasons were a lack of equipment and the focus on the northern front. Galant made a statement that quickly circulated in the media: Netanyahu’s priority is first himself, then the cabinet, and only finally Israel. He also dismissed Netanyahu’s claim about the U.S. role in the ammunition shortage as inaccurate.
Electoral context: A battle for public opinion
Galant’s decision to break his silence at this particular moment is no coincidence. The Occupied Territories are on the verge of elections, and the political climate has become highly polarized. Polls indicate that a significant portion of the Israeli public desires an end to Netanyahu’s era. In such an environment, the battle over competing narratives has taken on even greater importance. By entering this arena, Galant positions himself as an insider witness who claims he will not hide the truth.
What is unfolding today in the Occupied Territories is not merely an electoral dispute, but a battle over collective memory and historical responsibility. Many compare this crisis to the aftermath of the 1973 war, yet they believe the blow of October 7 is deeper and more lasting.
This defeat has severely tarnished the image of Israel’s army and political leaders, driving public trust to its lowest level. Under these circumstances, the struggle over competing narratives will continue, with each side striving to establish its version as the dominant truth. The key question remains: which narrative will ultimately endure in the minds of the Israeli public, and who will pay the price for the regime’s heaviest defeat in history?
/129
Your Comment