Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Fact check: How did Netanyahu's government respond to the October 7 terrorist attack?
Executive Summary
Netanyahu’s government responded to the October 7 attack with a sustained campaign against Israel’s adversaries, rejecting unilateral or limited ceasefires and signaling expanded operations against Hezbollah and Iran-linked networks while framing the conflict as existential and long-term. The government publicly emphasized military elimination of threats, diplomatic resistance to international pressure for immediate ceasefires, and a willingness to act beyond conventional boundaries to prevent rearmament and future attacks [1] [2].
1. Why Israel Said “No” to a Limited Ceasefire — Stopping Hezbollah’s Rearmament
Netanyahu’s government publicly opposed ceasefire proposals that it judged would permit Hezbollah to rearm, asserting that any truce which left Hezbollah intact would fail to secure Israel’s northern border. This position was communicated on diplomatic channels, including to France, and echoed in public statements that a ceasefire must include steps to halt Hezbollah’s capability to regroup and rearm. The core rationale presented was preventing a recurrence of attacks by denying Hezbollah the operational freedom to rebuild its forces [1].
2. Recasting the War: “The Revival War” and a Determination to Win
On the symbolism and narrative front, Netanyahu proposed renaming the campaign to “The Revival War,” tying the government’s response to October 7 directly to national survival and memory. That messaging framed military action as not merely punitive but restorative, aiming to ensure such an attack “will never happen again,” and to honor victims while rallying public and political support. The political objective of this rebranding was to legitimize sustained military operations and mobilize domestic consensus for aggressive measures [3].
3. Public Appeals to the International Community and Justifying Self-Defense
In addresses to global forums, Netanyahu emphasized Israel’s right to self-defense and pressed the international community to back efforts to degrade Hezbollah and Iranian influence. His U.N. remarks highlighted atrocities by Hamas to justify a broader security campaign and sought international validation for cross-border operations. The diplomatic thrust was to transform sympathy following October 7 into concrete support for actions aimed at Iran-backed proxies, arguing an international security interest in curbing Tehran’s regional reach [4].
4. Tactical Operations Beyond Public Acknowledgment: Pager Detonation and Covert Action
Operationally, Israel confirmed involvement in targeted strikes and covert actions designed to disrupt Hezbollah’s command-and-control and resupply channels, including the detonation of hundreds of pagers used by Hezbollah in Lebanon. Netanyahu publicly acknowledged such operations despite internal dissent, signaling a willingness to conduct unconventional measures to degrade enemy capabilities and extend the battlefield into Lebanon when necessary [2].
5. Calculus Toward Iran: National Interest Trumps External Pressures
Following regional escalations, including earlier Iranian missile activity, Netanyahu’s office stated that Israel would decide responses to Iran based on national interest rather than foreign direction. While acknowledging U.S. consultations, the government framed final decisions on retaliation and deterrence as sovereign judgments. This stance conveyed that strategic autonomy would guide responses even as Israel sought to coordinate with allies, underscoring a readiness to act independently if perceived national security needs dictated [5].
6. Domestic and International Tensions: Opposition to UN Peacekeeping Pullbacks
Netanyahu’s team rejected international calls to reposition or constrain peacekeeping forces in Lebanon, arguing that such moves could leave gaps Hezbollah might exploit. The government’s stance increased tensions with actors advocating for UN involvement to stabilize the border, framing those proposals as insufficient to prevent rearmament. The policy implication was a preference for active Israeli military measures over reliance on multinational peacekeeping to secure northern borders [1].
7. Competing Agendas and What’s Not Said: Political Messaging vs. Operational Limits
The government’s public narrative combined moral framing, deterrence, and operational assertiveness, yet the record shows competing aims: domestic political consolidation, deterring Iran, and degrading Hezbollah. Some officials opposed certain deniable operations, indicating internal debate on scope and risk [2]. International interlocutors pushing ceasefires or UN roles signaled divergent priorities. These competing agendas mean that while the government presented a unified hardline front, operational choices reflected a balance between bold action and caution amid diplomatic friction [1] [2].