Three Years After October 7: Israel's Unresolved Questions and the Battle Over Zionism's Meaning

Three years after the deadliest single day in its history, Israel finds itself still led by the same prime minister whose political obituary was written in the immediate aftermath of the October 7, 2023 attacks. Benjamin Netanyahu, who many commentators expected to be swiftly swept from power following the Hamas-led assault, remains in office and, according to France 24's "The Debate" program, retains a credible path to re-election. The third anniversary of the attacks has renewed scrutiny not only of Netanyahu's political durability but of the deeper questions Israel has yet to confront about the security failures that enabled the assault, the ideology that drove it, and the devastating military campaign that followed.

The program, broadcast on October 8, 2026, brought together a panel of experts to examine whether Israel can still be understood as the same country it was before October 7. Among the guests were Shirli Sitbon, France 24's International Affairs Editor; Gil Mihaely, Editor-in-Chief of the French magazine Causeur; John Lyndon, Executive Director of the Alliance for Middle East Peace; and Sawsan Zaher, a Palestinian human rights lawyer. Their discussion centered on a nation that has absorbed immense trauma but has, in the panel's assessment, largely avoided a reckoning with the root causes of the catastrophe.

Central to that unfinished reckoning is Netanyahu himself. In 2023, pundits predicted his rapid political demise in the wake of the worst day of bloodshed in Israel's history. Three years later, he is still prime minister and is positioned to contest the next election, scheduled for October 27. Even if the Likud leader is ultimately voted out, the program noted, his most serious general election rivals do not advocate for a radical departure when it comes to policy toward the Palestinians. That observation raises uncomfortable questions about whether any plausible electoral outcome would produce a fundamental shift in Israel's approach to the conflict.

The anniversary has also laid bare the linguistic battleground on which the debate over Israel's conduct now takes place. Certain words have become triggers. The term "genocide," for instance, provokes either fury or discomfort among many supporters of Israel. But the panel identified another word as even more central to the direction the country will take: Zionism. The concept has become the subject of intense and polarizing dispute, with the UK's Green Party having gone so far as to formally equate Zionism with racism—a move that reflects a broader international trend of challenging the ideological foundations of the Jewish state.

The debate over Zionism's meaning is not merely academic. It goes to the heart of what Israel understood itself to be at its founding in 1948 and what it has become more than seven and a half decades later. The panel explored whether Zionism, as originally conceived, can be reconciled with a lasting peace settlement in the Middle East—or whether the concept has, in practice, become an obstacle to the very security and normalization its founders sought. For many Israelis, Zionism remains the legitimate expression of Jewish self-determination; for its critics, it is increasingly framed as a settler-colonial ideology incompatible with Palestinian rights.

What makes the current moment so fraught is the absence of accountability. According to the program, Israel has not fully reckoned with the security failures that allowed the Hamas-led attack to succeed. Nor has it grappled with the root causes of the assault, including decades of occupation, blockade, and the collapse of any viable diplomatic horizon. And it has not meaningfully confronted the consequences of the brutal war of vengeance that followed—a campaign that has reshaped Gaza, inflamed the region, and drawn international legal scrutiny. The panel's framing suggests that these unresolved issues are not merely historical footnotes; they are active forces shaping Israel's politics and its standing in the world.

The political survival of Netanyahu is itself a case study in how trauma can be converted into electoral resilience. Despite the security establishment's failures and widespread public anger in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the prime minister has managed to hold his coalition together and outlast his critics. The panel noted that his rivals, even those who present themselves as alternatives, largely share the same fundamental approach to the Palestinians, meaning that a change in personnel would not necessarily produce a change in policy. This continuity suggests that the debate over Israel's future is not simply about who leads, but about the ideological consensus that constrains whoever holds power.

International opinion has shifted markedly in the three years since the attacks. The willingness of a mainstream European political party to label Zionism as racism would have been unthinkable a decade ago. That shift reflects growing frustration with the failure to achieve a two-state solution, the expansion of settlements, and the humanitarian toll of the war in Gaza. It also reflects a generational divide, with younger voters in Western countries increasingly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and increasingly skeptical of Israel's narrative. The panel's discussion of trigger words captures how difficult it has become to conduct a calm conversation about these issues.

Meanwhile, the war's regional dimensions continue to unfold. France 24's news coverage on the same day included reports that Houthi forces targeted an airport in Yemen, underscoring how the October 7 attacks and Israel's response have reverberated across the Middle East. The conflict has drawn in multiple non-state actors and raised the risk of a broader conflagration. Any discussion of Israel's future must therefore account for a regional environment that has become more volatile, not less, since 2023.

France's foreign minister, on the anniversary, denounced what he called the "poison" of anti-Semitism, a reminder that the debate over Israel is intertwined with the safety of Jewish communities worldwide. The French government has also been contending with domestic unrest, including a surprise student movement over school conditions that turned violent. These parallel developments illustrate how Middle East politics now bleeds into domestic politics across Europe, shaping debates about identity, security, and free expression.

The panel's core question—whether Israel is "no longer the same"—remains unresolved. What is clear is that the country has not achieved closure on the events of October 7. The failures of that day, the ideology that motivated the attackers, the war that followed, and the prime minister who presided over it all remain live controversies. The presidential and parliamentary calendar will force some of these questions to a head, but elections alone may not deliver the reckoning that the panel suggests is necessary.

For observers outside Israel, the stakes extend beyond the country's borders. If Zionism cannot be reconciled with a durable peace, the region will remain trapped in cycles of violence that destabilize the Middle East and strain international alliances. If it can, then the burden falls on political leaders to articulate a vision that addresses Palestinian aspirations without abandoning Israeli security. The panel's guests, drawn from journalism, advocacy, and human rights law, represented the range of perspectives that must be bridged if any such vision is to emerge.

Three years after the worst day in its history, Israel stands at an inflection point. The question posed by France 24's debate—whether the Jewish state can remain the same and still find a path to peace—is one that its citizens, its leaders, and the international community will continue to confront long after the anniversary commemorations fade.