Netanyahu Writes the War Narrative... and Begins the Election Battle

Author: Mustafa Ibrahim

The extensive interview conducted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with i24NEWS was not merely a media discussion about the war or his personal life; it appeared closer to a comprehensive political and electoral document. This came after the Israeli election date was set for October 27, 2026, a timing that is difficult to separate from the actual launch of the election campaign. Additionally, the choice of i24NEWS, which addresses the Israeli and international audience in multiple languages, was not without significance, as it allowed Netanyahu to send two parallel messages: the first to the Israeli voter and the second to the external public opinion, to promote his narrative regarding the war and its outcomes. The interview did not carry new data or a critical review of what transpired, as called for by the Israeli opposition, which holds Netanyahu accountable for the war's failures. Rather, it recycled the rhetoric he has been repeating for months, based on showcasing what he considers military and strategic achievements, from the Rafah operation to the confrontation with Iran, in an attempt to solidify his image as the leader who saved Israel, led it to "victory," and altered the balance of power in the region. It was obvious that the aim was not to unveil new facts or open a critical discussion about the course of the war, but rather to reshape public consciousness in preparation for the upcoming electoral challenge. The importance of this interpretation increases after the confirmation of the Israeli election date set for October 27, 2026, which carries political and historical implications. It is the first election held on its constitutional date in nearly 38 years and the first government to complete its legal term in over half a century. Netanyahu is likely to present this as a political achievement added to his record, having succeeded in maintaining the cohesion of his coalition despite one of the most complex periods in Israel's history, at a time when the opposition failed to topple his government or impose early elections. These messages cannot be separated from the shift that has occurred in Netanyahu's rhetoric in recent months. At the beginning of the war, his focus was on managing military operations; today, however, his focus has shifted to managing the narrative of the war itself. He seeks to transition the discussion from the question of responsibility for the failures of October 7 to another question: What has Israel achieved since then? Thus, he attempts to replace the image of failure with that of the "victorious leader" and to convince the Israeli voter that the results of the war are the measure by which his leadership should be judged, not the reasons that led to its outbreak. This transformation is not an insignificant detail; it represents the core of the electoral strategy that Netanyahu is working on. He understands that the events of October 7 will continue to haunt him and that investigative committees, security critiques, and calls for accountability will not disappear. Therefore, he tries to build a counter-narrative that suggests the mistakes that preceded the war are less significant compared to the "achievements" realized during it. It is an attempt to reorder the priorities of the Israeli voter so that the discussion shifts from responsibility for failure to the ability to achieve victory. Conversely, the Israeli opposition does not seem capable, as of now, of building a competing narrative with the same strength. It is true that the emergence of figures like Gadi Eizenkot gives the center bloc a political boost, but this rise is not without challenges. It is expected that Likud will seek to place part of the blame for security failures that preceded the war on Eizenkot, as he previously served as Chief of Staff, which may turn him into a target for an electoral campaign that seeks to share the responsibility for October 7 among multiple parties. In that case, the competition will not just revolve around who has a vision for the future but also around who bears responsibility for the past. Simultaneously, Netanyahu is not waging his battle against the opposition alone; he also faces challenges within Likud itself. The party is witnessing an increasing debate over Netanyahu's demand to grant himself the authority to choose a number of candidates and place them in prominent positions on the party's list for the next Knesset, which raises reservations among several leaders and MPs who fear losing their positions or diminishing their influence within the party. This debate reflects Netanyahu's desire to form a parliamentary bloc more loyal to him, ensuring the stability of his rule in the next phase and limiting any internal rebellion he may face after the elections. These disputes reveal that Likud, despite leading in opinion polls, is not as homogeneous a bloc as it appears. There is an early struggle over positions, the future leadership of the party, and the identity of the figures who will accompany Netanyahu should he win a new term. Hence, managing the electoral list is as crucial for him as managing the media campaign since it represents a guarantee for the continuity of his influence within the party and the government simultaneously. Although opinion polls remain subject to change, the current indicators give Netanyahu an undeniable advantage. The opposition remains fragmented and has yet to agree on a unified leadership or a political program capable of competing with Likud. Moreover, the government's continuity until the end of its term, after years of political instability and repeated elections, gives Netanyahu the opportunity to present himself as the leader who restored stability to the Israeli political system, a message that may resonate with a broad segment of voters. Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the current phase is that the war itself has begun to transform into electoral material. Every military operation, every security statement, and every media appearance is being utilized within the battle to gain voters' support. Therefore, it is difficult to treat Netanyahu's interviews or speeches merely as evaluations of events, as they have become part of a broader process aimed at solidifying a comprehensive political narrative, making Netanyahu a hero who, according to his rhetoric, has freed Israel from its enemies and redrawn the map of the Middle East. However, this narrative, no matter how powerful its media presence, does not eliminate the unanswered questions regarding the political leadership's responsibility for the failures that preceded the war, nor does it absolve Netanyahu from his opponents' attempts to link him to the events of October 7. Therefore, the upcoming elections will not only be a competition between political programs but will also be a struggle for memory, for interpreting what transpired, and for determining who writes the war narrative and who bears responsibility for its outset. As we approach October 27, Israel seems to have already entered election season. What we witness today in media interviews, showcasing achievements, and reproducing security rhetoric is just the first chapter in an electoral campaign in which Netanyahu will attempt to turn the war into a new source of political legitimacy, presenting himself as the leader who guided Israel from failure to "victory." Whether the Israeli voter will be convinced by this narrative or whether the memory of October 7 will remain strongly present at the ballot boxes will be the decisive question that the upcoming elections will answer.