Everyone is asking if Netanyahu was warned — and missing the real question

Dr. Michael Priante argues that the central question is not whether Netanyahu was warned of the October 7 attack, but how the government remained in power after the disaster. He criticizes the continued tenure of the government, the handling of the hostages, and the judicial reform, and calls for a focus on the choice between democracy and theocracy.

In his article, Dr. Michael Priante argues that the public debate over whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was warned of the October 7, 2023 attack misses the real question: how the government remained in power after the most tragic event to strike the country since its founding, and perhaps since the Holocaust. According to him, even if Netanyahu was warned, it was a matter of poor judgment rather than negligence, and the security concept he led contributed to underestimating the threat. The article attacks the continued tenure of the current government, the abandonment of the 251 hostages, the prolongation of the war, and the judicial reform led by Netanyahu and Yariv Levin. Priante criticizes the change parties for their inability to agree on Gadi Eisenkot as a candidate for prime minister, and warns of a scenario where Naftali Bennett joins Netanyahu. He presents voters with a choice between a Jewish and democratic state and a theocratic-totalitarian state.