olivia-hartono
Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid has sharply criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for what he described as scaremongering, after the incumbent warned that the country's adversaries could launch attacks in the run-up to next month's general election. The exchange has injected national security — normally a unifying theme in Israeli politics — directly into an already heated campaign, just days before voters head to the polls.
The clash followed a video posted online by Netanyahu on Tuesday in which he appeared in front of a fighter jet at a military base. In the clip, the prime minister said there were "indications that, ahead of the elections, our enemies will try to attack us." He did not identify which adversary he was referring to, leaving the warning deliberately broad and open to interpretation.
The ambiguity did little to dampen the political impact. In recent weeks, Netanyahu has issued repeated warnings directed at Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Palestinian Authority, each time promising swift retaliation should any of them strike. The accumulation of such statements, critics argue, has blurred the line between genuine threat assessment and campaign messaging.
Lapid, who leads the Yesh Atid party, responded by requesting an urgent security briefing. After receiving it, he took to social media to say he was convinced the election would proceed as scheduled and that "there is no reason to panic the public." He added that "the elections will take place on time, and no one has an excuse to disrupt them," framing his message as a call for calm rather than confrontation.
The opposition leader was more pointed in his criticism of Netanyahu's methods, accusing him of using military bases as "props for election campaign videos." He also invoked the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023, arguing that the prime minister had disregarded warnings before that assault, which triggered Israel's war in Gaza and a broader regional conflagration. More than 76,000 Palestinians have been killed in the conflict, according to the source account.
"Netanyahu ignored every warning before October 7, and now, 28 days before the election, he's suddenly busy fear-mongering," Lapid said. He added that while he would not breach the confidentiality of the security briefing, "security threats must be handled professionally and responsibly" — a remark widely read as an accusation that Netanyahu was politicizing sensitive intelligence.
For his part, Netanyahu said in a separate post on Tuesday that he had conducted a security briefing with Lapid in which he raised alerts about possible attacks "on the various fronts ahead of the elections." He stressed that he holds regular briefings with the opposition leader, a formulation intended to present the exchange as routine state business rather than a political stunt.
The timing of the dispute is significant. Israel's election is scheduled for October 7, the first national vote since the Hamas-led attacks three years ago. That date carries enormous symbolic weight, and the campaign has unfolded against the backdrop of a war that has reshaped the country's security doctrine, strained its economy and divided its public.
The outcome could determine whether Netanyahu, Israel's longest-serving leader, remains in power after one of the most consequential periods in the country's history — or is unseated by centrist rivals promising a new direction. Netanyahu was first elected prime minister in 1996 and has dominated Israeli politics for much of the intervening period, but his standing has been tested by the war's trajectory and by persistent questions about his handling of pre-war intelligence.
In recent weeks, he has had to deny media reports that his partners in the Middle East had warned him of a potential Hamas attack — an allegation his political rivals have seized upon as evidence of negligence. The focus on October 7 is a central battlefield of the campaign, with opposition figures arguing that a change of leadership is necessary to restore public trust.
Polls indicate a tight race. According to a Reuters polling average, no candidate has a clear path to power. The average shows Yashar, the party of Gadi Eisenkot, a former military chief who has emerged as Netanyahu's most formidable rival, leading the prime minister's right-wing Likud party by 2 points. That margin is within the range that could shift before election day.
Based on the same average, parties opposed to Netanyahu would hold 64 seats in the 120-member Knesset, 15 more than the parties that back him. Yet even with that numerical advantage, the anti-Netanyahu bloc may be unable to assemble a governing coalition — a structural problem that has repeatedly paralyzed Israeli politics and could once again force protracted negotiations or another round of elections.
Lapid is one of several opposition figures competing for leadership of that bloc. He, Eisenkot and other opposition leaders agreed last week to coordinate their efforts to remove Netanyahu's government. Under the agreement, each leader pledged to work in their own constituencies to increase turnout and attract support from various sectors of society, with the aim of securing a majority capable of forming a new government.
The arrangement reflects a broader recognition among Netanyahu's opponents that fragmentation has repeatedly cost them power. By dividing labor rather than competing head-on, the parties hope to maximize their combined seat count and present voters with a credible alternative — though the strategy carries risks, since coalition partners with divergent agendas must still agree on a prime minister and a governing platform.
Netanyahu's warning about pre-election attacks also raises delicate questions about the conduct of national security during an election period. Israeli leaders traditionally maintain a degree of cross-party consultation on security matters, and the opposition leader receives classified briefings as a matter of course. When such briefings become the subject of public dispute, it can undermine the perceived separation between security decision-making and partisan advantage.
The prime minister's supporters would likely argue that publicizing threats is a duty of leadership, not a campaign tactic, and that voters deserve to know the risks the country faces. His critics counter that vague, unattributed warnings — delivered in front of military hardware — are designed to create anxiety that benefits the incumbent, who has long positioned himself as the country's ultimate security guarantor.
With the vote now less than a week away, both camps appear to be calculating that security credibility will decide the contest. Netanyahu is betting that his experience and hardline posture will persuade voters to stay the course; Lapid and his allies are betting that fatigue with prolonged war, coupled with unanswered questions about October 7, will persuade voters to turn the page. The coming days will reveal which argument resonates — and whether the prime minister's warning of looming attacks proves prescient or, as his opponents allege, purely political.
Comments (0)