Oct. 7 accusations and the manufactured crusade to bring down Netanyahu - opinion

OCTOBER 12, 2026 17:36The orchestrated storm of unconfirmed allegations surrounding Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s actions before and after the October 7 attacks has devolved into a transparent exercise in political warfare.In recent weeks, the public square has been systematically flooded with self-serving leaks, retroactive warnings, and highly selective recollections. We are expected to blindly accept that United Arab Emirates President Mohamed bin Zayed (MBZ) magically warned Netanyahu of an impending offensive, and that Egyptian intelligence chief Abbas Kamel made a clandestine trip to deliver an identical alert.Concurrently, a parade of defense and intelligence officials has stepped forward, audaciously claiming they systematically flagged a deteriorating security situation only to be ignored by the political echelon.Attempts to sabotage Netanyahu, cover up military failuresLet’s inject some overdue reality into this narrative: The ongoing wave of unconfirmed accusations against Netanyahu is a desperate weaponization of institutional self-preservation and political timing, designed to cover up systemic military failures and sabotage his reelection.To date, not a single one of these convenient external warning claims has been independently verified. More importantly, the forces peddling these assertions are far from neutral observers. The catastrophic failure of October 7 was, first and foremost, a colossal institutional collapse across Israel's military and intelligence apparatus. It is blindingly obvious that individuals within these very systems are highly motivated to leak curated narratives, shifting the blame from their own severe operational blind spots onto the prime minister.Former military secretary Avi Gil. (credit: YONATAN SINDEL/FLASH90)Furthermore, the timing of these disclosures exposes their true intent. With shifting political horizons and the looming prospect of future elections, this sudden rush to air long-held grievances is a coordinated hit piece meant to destroy Netanyahu’s electoral viability. When accusations are deliberately timed to maximize political damage, their credibility evaporates entirely.This pattern of selective narrative-building collapses under scrutiny, especially when examining the recent assertions made by Netanyahu’s former military secretary, Avi Gil. Gil claims that the prime minister bypassed critical "opportunities" to secure the release of hostages out of fear that his governing coalition would fall apart. This accusation completely divorces itself from reality. The American special presidential envoy for hostage affairs explicitly stated that during the time in question, Hamas was simply not interested in releasing any of the Israeli hostages.This definitive assessment completely decimates the media's favorite lie that viable, realistic deals were sitting on Netanyahu's desk waiting to be signed.The only "terms" Hamas ever seriously demanded centered on a total, permanent surrender – a comprehensive ceasefire and the mass release of high-profile security prisoners. Accepting these suicidal demands would have cemented Hamas's survival and rule in Gaza, delivering the terror group a total victory. Key coalition partners like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich rightly vowed to leave the government if such a capitulation occurred.While naive commentators argue that Netanyahu could have accepted Hamas's terms to return the hostages and subsequently wiped them out later, such a reckless gamble contradicts his historically cautious strategic doctrine. Confronted with a choice between political suicide or relying on a defense establishment hamstrung by decades of conceptual stagnation, the government faced an incredibly narrow operational path. The IDF’s initial challenges in securing a rapid, decisive victory point squarely to deeper institutional incompetence – including legacy doctrines associated with former chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot and restrictive rules of engagement that tied the army's hands – rather than simple political obstinacy.Predictably, the mainstream media has completely buried alternative viewpoints that destroy their preferred anti-Bibi crusade. For instance, testimonies from hostage families revealing that Hamas was so heavily damaged that they were on the verge of cutting a deal far more advantageous to Israel have been met with total silence. Instead, it was the Israeli Left that rushed to Hamas's rescue, prioritizing an immediate hostage deal over the total destruction of the terror group, thereby granting Hamas vital strategic breathing room.This disastrous approach was heavily championed by figures like Gadi Eisenkot, yet he and the other architects of this failure enjoy a striking lack of media accountability.Instead, the media remains single-mindedly obsessed with Avi Gil’s baseless allegations. Yet Gil’s own credibility is entirely shot, given the glaring questions regarding his own failure to decisively alert the political leadership in the critical hours immediately preceding the October 7 assault.As long as the national discourse relies on unverified leaks from desperate actors with everything to lose, the true history of this period will remain obscured by political warfare. It is time to look past the media consensus, ground ourselves in the external diplomatic reality that Hamas refused to deal, and reject this transparent hit job for what it is.Follow us on Google