Three years after October 7, Israel is heading into an election that could decide Netanyahu’s political future

Israel is marking three years since the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack with memorials, moments of silence and public gatherings across the country as the trauma of the deadliest day in Israeli history remains deeply embedded in national life. More than 1,200 people were killed and 251 were taken hostage when militants crossed from Gaza into southern Israel, attacking communities, military positions and the Nova music festival. Ceremonies are taking place at hundreds of locations, including the festival site where more than 370 people were killed and 44 were abducted.

The anniversary comes less than three weeks before Israel holds its first national election since the attack, turning remembrance into a defining political backdrop for the campaign. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is seeking another term while opponents argue that the government must be held accountable for the security failures that allowed the assault to happen. His supporters instead emphasize Israel’s military response over the past three years and argue that the country has recovered from an unprecedented national shock while confronting threats across several fronts.

The political debate is unfolding alongside the enormous human consequences of the conflict that followed. Gaza has suffered widespread destruction and tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths, while fighting expanded into Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and two direct conflicts involving Iran. Three years after the attack, Israel is therefore commemorating its victims while confronting unresolved arguments over responsibility, security, governance and what the country’s postwar future should look like.

Memorials across Israel focus on victims, hostages and communities shattered by the attack

The commemorations began at 6:29 a.m., the time the attack started three years ago, with remembrance events across Israel. Families of victims, survivors and communities near Gaza gathered at sites where the violence unfolded, while hospitals, universities, local governments and private organizations participated in moments of reflection. Organizers said memorial events were being held at more than 400 locations nationwide.

The Nova festival site near Kibbutz Re’im remains one of the most emotionally significant locations. Hundreds of young people were killed there after gunmen attacked the outdoor music festival, while dozens were taken into Gaza. Photographs, memorials and personal belongings now mark the site, which has become one of the most prominent symbols of the attack.

Families of those killed and abducted have also played a central role in shaping the commemorations. Many spent years campaigning for the return of hostages and demanding investigations into the failures that preceded the assault. Their activism has ensured that October 7 remains not only a day of mourning but also a continuing source of pressure on Israel’s political and security leadership.

The anniversary has consequently produced both unity and protest. Israelis across the political spectrum broadly share the grief surrounding the attack, but they remain sharply divided over who should bear responsibility and whether the government has adequately addressed the failures exposed that morning.

October 27 election has turned the anniversary into a defining political issue

Israel’s national election on October 27 will be the first since the attack and is increasingly being framed around competing interpretations of what happened afterward. Netanyahu remains the country’s longest-serving prime minister and the most prominent political figure still in office from the leadership in place when the assault occurred. The result could determine whether he extends a political career that has already survived multiple wars, investigations and coalition crises.

Opposition parties are focusing heavily on accountability. Former military chief Gadi Eisenkot, now one of Netanyahu’s principal challengers, has argued that the country needs political reconstruction alongside a formal investigation into the failures surrounding October 7. His campaign has also emphasized military-service obligations and institutional trust, presenting the election as a choice about responsibility rather than simply ideology.

Netanyahu’s message is markedly different. He argues that Israel emerged stronger after confronting Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and other regional adversaries, and he has resisted efforts to place primary responsibility for the original security breakdown on his government. He has instead pointed to failures inside the military and intelligence establishment while portraying his leadership as essential to Israel’s recovery.

The result is an election in which both sides invoke the same national trauma while drawing opposite political conclusions from it. Surveys cited by Israeli researchers indicate that attitudes toward October 7 are central to voting decisions for a majority of Israelis, but that importance does not translate into a shared view of whom voters should support.

Demands for an official inquiry remain one of the most divisive unresolved questions

Three years after the attack, Israel still lacks the kind of comprehensive state commission of inquiry that critics say is necessary to establish responsibility across government, military and intelligence institutions. Several senior security officials have resigned or acknowledged failures connected to the attack, leaving Netanyahu as the most prominent senior leader from that period still in office.

Opposition parties and many victims’ families want an independent commission with broad powers to examine decision-making before the attack. Such an inquiry could investigate intelligence assessments, military preparedness, border defenses and political assumptions about Hamas in the years preceding October 2023. Supporters argue that identifying institutional failures is essential if Israel wants to prevent a comparable security breakdown.

Netanyahu has resisted calls for the inquiry sought by his opponents, arguing that questions of responsibility should be addressed differently and that security agencies also failed to provide adequate warning. The disagreement has become increasingly political because any official investigation could affect public judgments of both the government and military leadership.

The dispute also reflects a broader tension between collective national mourning and institutional accountability. Memorial ceremonies emphasize unity around victims and survivors, while the election campaign forces Israelis to decide how much responsibility should be assigned to those who were governing when the attack occurred.

Three years of war have fundamentally reshaped Israel and the wider Middle East

The military response to October 7 began with Israel’s campaign in Gaza but eventually expanded into a much wider regional confrontation. Israel fought Hezbollah in Lebanon, carried out operations in Syria and Yemen and later entered direct conflict with Iran. The result has been a strategic landscape very different from the one that existed before the attack.

Israeli leaders argue that military operations have weakened several hostile armed groups and demonstrated the country’s ability to respond across multiple fronts. At the same time, the wars have imposed substantial costs on Israeli society through military casualties, prolonged reserve service, economic disruption and repeated security alerts.

The consequences for Palestinians in Gaza have been far more extensive. Local health authorities report more than 74,000 Palestinian deaths since the war began, while much of the territory’s housing and infrastructure has been destroyed or damaged. Israel says its operations have targeted Hamas and other militant groups and rejects accusations that its military campaign amounts to genocide.

The enormous disparity in experiences has produced sharply different narratives of the past three years. In Israel, public discussion around the anniversary is dominated by the trauma of October 7 and questions of national security, while Palestinians continue confronting displacement, destruction and a humanitarian crisis that remains unresolved.

Gaza’s humanitarian crisis remains largely separate from Israel’s election debate

One of the most striking features of Israel’s current political campaign is how little the humanitarian situation in Gaza features in mainstream electoral discussion. Candidates from several major parties are focused primarily on Israeli security, military service, institutional accountability and the country’s regional position. Even politicians critical of Netanyahu have generally avoided making Palestinian statehood or Gaza reconstruction central campaign themes.

That reflects a significant hardening of Israeli public opinion after October 7. The attack reduced already-limited confidence in negotiations with Hamas and weakened domestic support for political initiatives perceived as creating security risks. Debate over a future Palestinian state consequently occupies far less space than it did during earlier periods of Israeli politics.

Internationally, however, Gaza remains one of the central issues shaping perceptions of Israel. Foreign governments and humanitarian organizations continue raising concerns over civilian deaths, destruction and restrictions affecting reconstruction and medical services. Several governments have accused Israel of violating international law or committing genocide, allegations Israel strongly denies.

This divide between domestic and international political priorities may become increasingly important after the election. Whatever government emerges will have to manage pressure from Israeli voters focused on security while also confronting growing diplomatic demands over Gaza’s long-term future.

Netanyahu and Eisenkot offer sharply different arguments about what comes next

Netanyahu’s campaign is built around the claim that his government survived a historic attack and then fundamentally altered the regional balance of power. He presents Israel’s subsequent military campaigns as evidence that the country recovered from its vulnerability and forced adversaries to reconsider the costs of confronting it. That argument appeals particularly to voters who prioritize military strength and view continued pressure on regional enemies as essential.

Eisenkot and other opposition figures focus more heavily on institutional failure and national repair. They argue that military achievements do not erase the breakdown that occurred before and during October 7 and that public confidence cannot be restored without accountability. Eisenkot’s personal experience also shapes his campaign after his son and nephew were killed while serving in Gaza.

Both messages draw directly from the same three-year period but emphasize different parts of it. Netanyahu asks voters to judge his government by Israel’s response after the attack, while his opponents ask them to judge the leadership by the failure that allowed the attack to occur in the first place.

That distinction may become one of the simplest ways to understand the election. The campaign is not primarily debating whether October 7 transformed Israel; virtually every major political faction agrees that it did. The disagreement is over what that transformation says about the leaders who governed through it.

The anniversary shows how October 7 continues to shape Israel’s national identity

The scale of Wednesday’s commemorations demonstrates that October 7 has become a defining national event rather than simply another anniversary on Israel’s calendar. Families continue mourning relatives, communities along the Gaza border continue rebuilding, and former hostages and survivors remain highly visible in public life. Political parties are also recruiting candidates who were directly affected by the attack or subsequent war.

That personal connection means the events are likely to remain politically powerful long after the immediate election. Questions surrounding military readiness, intelligence assumptions, hostage policy and government responsibility will continue affecting public institutions even if a different coalition takes power.

The attack has also influenced how Israelis view regional threats and the prospect of future diplomacy. Security remains central to national political debate, while trust in institutions has been tested by the failures surrounding the attack and the controversies that followed.

Three years later, Israel has changed militarily, politically and socially. The memorials provide a moment to remember those killed and abducted, but the approaching election shows that the country is still debating what lessons should ultimately be drawn from the day that reshaped it.

Key takeaways as Israel marks three years since the October 7 attack

• Israel is holding memorials and moments of reflection across more than 400 locations to mark three years since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack.
• More than 1,200 people were killed and 251 were taken hostage during the assault, the deadliest single day in Israel’s history.
• The Nova music festival site remains a major focus of remembrance after more than 370 people were killed and 44 were abducted there.
• Israel will hold its first national election since the attack on October 27, placing accountability and security at the center of the campaign.
• Benjamin Netanyahu argues that Israel recovered militarily after the attack, while opponents say his government must answer for the failures that preceded it.
• Opposition figures are demanding a formal state inquiry examining political, intelligence and military responsibility for the security breakdown.
• The wars that followed October 7 reshaped the wider region while producing widespread destruction and a continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
• The anniversary underscores how October 7 remains central to Israel’s politics, national identity and debate over the country’s future direction.