Zohar's Oct. 7 remarks reignite blame debate as state inquiry remains pending

Lead

Culture and Sport Minister Miki Zohar (Likud) has reignited a political firestorm by asserting that Hamas planned the October 7, 2023, massacre while the previous government, led by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid, was in power. In a radio interview on Sunday, Zohar argued that the then-Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar interpreted that coalition as weak and formulated the attack during its tenure. His comments, reported by both the Jerusalem Post news article and its editorial, have drawn sharp condemnation from opposition leaders and renewed debates over accountability for the worst attack in Israel's history.

Coverage Comparison

The Jerusalem Post's news report and its editorial both cover Zohar's remarks, but with different focuses. The news article, by Keshet Neev, presents Zohar's statements directly, including his warning that a future government reliant on Arab parties could invite another attack. It also notes that the attacks occurred under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government and that no state inquiry has been established. The editorial, published the following day, criticizes Zohar's attempt to shift blame, arguing that Israelis expect honesty and responsibility from their leaders, not scapegoating.

Key Claims

• Zohar claimed that Hamas planned the October 7 attack during the government led by Bennett and Lapid in 2022, citing intelligence that Sinwar saw weakness in that coalition. This claim is reported by a single source, the Jerusalem Post, and has not been independently verified.
• The attack on October 7, 2023, occurred while Netanyahu was prime minister, a fact confirmed by multiple sources.
• Over two and a half years later, no official investigation into the government's role in the attack has been launched, as reported by the Jerusalem Post.
• Zohar warned that if a similar government dependent on Arab parties were formed, "the next October 7 would be on its way." This predictive statement, carried only by the Jerusalem Post, has been met with criticism.
• Bennett and Lapid strongly condemned Zohar's remarks, accusing him of evading accountability and reshaping the narrative, according to the Jerusalem Post.
• The editorial highlights the conceptzia—the strategic assumption that Hamas could be managed—that persisted across political and security establishments for years.

Perspectives

Zohar's perspective: He maintains that Hamas planned the attack during the Bennett-Lapid government, which included an Arab party for the first time, and that this perceived weakness encouraged enemies. He acknowledges the attack "happened on our watch" but insists the plan was formed earlier.

Opposition perspective: Bennett and Lapid reject Zohar's framing, seeing it as a diversion from the current government's responsibility. They and other opposition leaders have vowed to establish a state commission of inquiry after elections to investigate the government's role.

Editorial perspective: The Jerusalem Post editorial argues that Israelis can accept failure but not evasion of responsibility. It criticizes senior ministers for still searching for scapegoats nearly three years after the massacre, emphasizing that the government in power at the time of the attack failed to recognize the threat. The editorial also notes the government's recent decision to rename the war "War of Revival," which it sees as part of a narrative shift.

The debate underscores deep national divisions over who bears responsibility for October 7. While Zohar's claim has not been corroborated by other outlets, the broader demand for accountability—particularly via a state inquiry—has been a consistent theme in public discourse. As Israel approaches another election cycle, the question of historical responsibility remains unresolved, with each side seeking to shape the narrative.