Three years after October 7: Netanyahu's responsibility still open
The attack of October 7 was a crime committed by Hamas and other armed groups. Whether, and to what extent, Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu bears political or legal responsibility cannot be conclusively answered three years later.
Anyone who, three years after the attack of October 7, asks about Benjamin Netanyahu's "complicity" is looking for a short answer to a long chain of decisions. The available official documents do not provide such an answer. They document serious questions for Israel's political and security leadership. But they do not document a concluded, independent decision establishing the prime minister's individual political or criminal responsibility.
This distinction is not an evasion. It determines whether a debate about accountability clarifies facts or replaces an open inquiry with a ready-made verdict.
Three levels that must not be conflated
First, it is about the act itself. The attack on Israeli communities on October 7, 2023, was carried out by Hamas and other armed Palestinian groups. Direct responsibility for killings, hostage-taking and further violence lies with the perpetrators. This level does not become smaller because mistakes on the Israeli side are discussed.
Second, it is about preventive and operational failure of the state: which warnings existed? How were they assessed? Why were the border defence, the army and the intelligence services unable to prevent the attack or to react faster? These are verifiable questions about institutions and political decision-making channels.
Third, individual responsibility is on the table. Political responsibility can mean that a government must answer for priorities, personnel decisions or security concepts. Criminal responsibility, by contrast, requires legally robust proof following a regulated procedure. The failure of an institution does not automatically imply the personal guilt of an individual politician – just as an institutional inquiry does not rule out individual responsibility.
Why the official investigation remains incomplete
This is precisely where the problem shows. In July 2026 the Knesset approved a bill for a state commission of inquiry in its first reading. The text provides for a comprehensive and independent investigation into the circumstances of October 7 and the war that followed. It was then referred back to the responsible committee.
That is an important political step, but not yet a constituted commission and certainly not a final report. A first reading neither automatically creates an investigative mandate nor answers the question of which persons would later be assessed, and how.
In parallel, Israel's state comptroller is examining individual areas. At the end of June his office announced that four audits could be continued and published. These include, for example, the treatment of civilian victims, the licensing and securing of the music festival near Re'im, and the defence of southern towns. According to the office, four further audits remained suspended, among them examinations of the working processes of the political level and of the intelligence services, as well as the sequence of events on October 7.
The reckoning is therefore not empty. But it is fragmented. Anyone who today derives a final guilty verdict against Netanyahu from it goes beyond the state of the official proceedings.
What the known allegations actually say
Debates repeatedly revolve around alleged warnings from foreign services, around the security strategy towards Gaza or around the government's priorities. Such allegations deserve scrutiny – and the government has publicly disputed certain accounts. A statement from the prime minister's office, however, is not an independent clarification. Conversely, a media report does not replace a judicial assessment of evidence.
This does not mean that political responsibility may only be discussed after a court ruling. Democracies must also ask beforehand whether a government was adequately prepared, took warning signs seriously and drew consequences from mistakes. But terms such as "complicity" or "responsibility" must not shift, depending on political stance, between moral judgement, institutional failure and criminal liability.
Why precision matters in Switzerland too
The war in the Middle East is also debated intensively in Switzerland – politically, on humanitarian grounds and under international law. That is precisely why it makes sense to separate the questions cleanly. Swiss citizens can at the same time recognise that the attack was a grave crime, demand a credible investigation into state failures, and leave open what individual responsibility an orderly procedure ultimately establishes.
This is not a linguistic nicety. After major security failures, independent investigation decides whether trust in institutions returns. For that, Israel needs more than parliamentary debates and partial results: an investigation whose mandate, independence and findings can carry an answer to the central open questions. Until then, the most precise answer on Netanyahu's role remains: there are weighty questions – but no concluding independent decision.
Sources
- Knesset: bill for a state commission of inquiry, first reading
- State Comptroller of Israel: status of the audits on October 7, June 29, 2026
- United Nations: report of the Special Representative on conflict-related sexual violence, March 4, 2024
- Prime Minister's Office: statement on an alleged Egyptian warning, September 26, 2026
