Honest Criticism of the Netanyahu Government's Wartime Conduct

Support for Israel’s existence does not require approval of every decision made by its government. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his coalition face specific, documented criticism over the divisions preceding October 7, the security failure that day, policy toward Hamas before the war, extremist coalition partners, settler violence, hostage negotiations, and humanitarian access. OZJF rejects the claim that the war is genocidal, while recognizing that Israel’s conduct and leadership still require scrutiny.

The judicial overhaul split the country before the war

In 2023, coalition ministers Yariv Levin and Simcha Rothman pushed a sweeping judicial overhaul. The plan would have let a bare Knesset majority override the Supreme Court on key rulings. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis protested week after week. Reservists warned they would stop showing up. Past security chiefs said the fight was draining focus from real threats.¹²

Israel was deeply divided by October 7. Mainstream Israeli reporting and retired defense officials had warned that the dispute was weakening national cohesion and military readiness.²

October 7 and the question of responsibility

The Hamas assault killed about 1,200 people in Israel and took 251 hostages. It was the worst day for Jews since the Holocaust.³ It also happened on Netanyahu’s watch, under a security doctrine he long backed.

Israeli military and intelligence chiefs have accepted personal blame. Former IDF chief Herzi Halevi and former Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar both resigned and said the failure was theirs to own.⁴ Netanyahu has not offered the same. He has said a full state commission of inquiry should wait until after the war. Israeli commentators across the spectrum, including in the Times of Israel and Haaretz, have pressed him to say more, sooner.⁵

Qatari money to Hamas before the war

For years, Netanyahu’s governments allowed Qatar to send suitcases of cash into Gaza. The stated goal was to keep Hamas calm and split Gaza from the West Bank. Israeli reporting after October 7 showed that senior officials had warned the policy was risky and was helping Hamas build up. Times of Israel and Reuters have both traced the paper trail.⁶⁷

Netanyahu’s governments adopted and continued that policy. Many Israeli critics now identify it as a major strategic error.

An extreme-right coalition with a cost

To stay in power, Netanyahu built his 2022 coalition with Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich. Both have made public statements that were condemned by Israel’s president, by opposition leaders, and by the U.S. government. Smotrich’s March 2023 remarks erasing a Palestinian town drew a rare public rebuke from the U.S. State Department.⁸ Ben-Gvir’s push to arm civilian groups and his trips to sensitive holy sites have drawn warnings from Israel’s own security services.⁹

Their statements and actions have damaged Israel’s standing and made it harder to distinguish the country’s legitimate security claims from the coalition’s most extreme rhetoric.

Settler violence and West Bank policy

Settler attacks on Palestinian villagers in the West Bank rose sharply after October 7. The Biden administration placed sanctions on some violent settlers in early 2024. The Trump administration later lifted those orders, but U.S. officials in both parties have pressed Israel to do more to stop the attacks.¹⁰¹¹ Israeli human-rights groups and mainstream papers have reported cases where police and soldiers stood by. Israel’s own attorney general has pushed for more prosecutions.¹²

Support for Israel is compatible with demanding that its government investigate and prosecute violence against Palestinian civilians under Israeli law.

Hostage deals and humanitarian aid

Hostage families, former security chiefs, and large parts of the Israeli public have accused Netanyahu of moving too slowly on deals that could bring hostages home. Reporting in Reuters and the Wall Street Journal has detailed cabinet splits where Netanyahu blocked terms the security chiefs were ready to accept.¹³¹⁴

The U.S. government has repeatedly pressed Israel to open crossings and increase the flow of food, water, and fuel. Secretary of State Antony Blinken and later Trump administration officials publicly warned Israel about humanitarian access.¹⁵ The adequacy and consistency of Israel’s response remain legitimate subjects of criticism.

On the press tilt

Criticism of Netanyahu also appears within a wider environment of sharply rising antisemitism. ADL and AJC recorded historic levels of antisemitic incidents in the United States and Europe after October 7¹⁶¹⁷. Pew research documents deep divisions in public attitudes toward the war and the media¹⁸. None of that invalidates specific criticism of Israeli policy. It does require care when criticism shifts from government conduct to collective claims about Jews or Israel’s right to exist.

Bottom line

The war has inflicted severe harm on Israelis and Palestinians. Israel retains the right to exist and defend its population against armed groups committed to its destruction. That right does not remove the obligation to examine the decisions of its elected leaders. Criticizing documented failures by the Netanyahu government strengthens rather than abandons a credible pro-Israel argument.

Sources