The intense disputes over the establishment of a state commission of inquiry, the deepening political and social divide, and the polls reflecting levels of support for various parties—including public trust in leadership and personal suitability for the role of prime minister—provide an excellent reason to step back more than fifty years to the Israel of the post-Yom Kippur War era.
The elections for the Eighth Knesset in December 1973 were held shortly after the war, under its shadow, marked by sharp criticism and public protests against the government of Golda Meir. The public could not remain indifferent to the security failure that heralded the beginning of the country’s most severe crisis since its establishment. This crisis brought significant consequences in political, social, and economic realms. While Meir initially declared in response to the first wave of protests, “I am guilty, but I am not resigning,” politics, as is often the case, had a way of diverging from declarations.
Victory at the Ballot Box, Protests, and Resignation
Even before the elections, immediately after the war, opposition figures, broad segments of the public, and reservists demanded the establishment of a state commission of inquiry. Prime Minister Meir opposed this process, attempting to delay its establishment and channel the process into investigating specific military failures. However, public anger and demonstrations intensified, forcing Meir and her government, despite their initial opposition, to announce the commission’s establishment.
The commission, headed by Supreme Court President Dr. Shimon Agranat, was established on November 21, 1973, a month after the ceasefire with Egypt (the fighting with Syria continued until May 1974) and a month before the elections. Its members investigated the IDF’s preparedness for war, intelligence aspects, and military operations until they halted the advance on October 8.
The elections for the Eighth Knesset were held on December 31, 1973, and the war’s impact was evident, even if it did not yet lead to a tectonic shift in the political map. While the Alignment (the Labor Party, including Rafi and other affiliates) won 51 seats, this represented a loss of nine seats compared to the 1970 elections – a sign that the public viewed the government and its leader as primarily responsible for the war’s failures. On the other hand, Likud gained seven seats, reaching a total of 31. Additionally, two new parties were established for the 1973 elections: The New Center, which won six seats, and the Religious Zionism Movement, which won four. The ultra-Orthodox factions won five seats in total.
Prime Minister Meir managed to form a government and establish a coalition. Still, on April 1, 1974, following the release of the first interim report by the Agranat Commission, she realized she could no longer remain in office. While the report did not place direct responsibility on her or Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, holding only the military leadership accountable, public protests intensified. The harsh criticism of the evasion of responsibility led Meir to submit her resignation on April 11, 1974. The public’s sense of failure and demand for policy changes influenced politics. It marked the beginning of processes that would eventually lead to substantial changes in Israel’s political leadership.
Meir was succeeded as Prime Minister by Yitzhak Rabin. He led the negotiations with Egypt and Syria and oversaw the rehabilitation of Israel’s economy following the war. This period was also marked by the exposure of several corruption scandals involving senior figures in the Labor Party.
The Political Shift – A Manifestation of Accumulated Disappointment
The major political upheaval, likely influenced by the aftershocks of the Yom Kippur War and other protests against Mapai’s rule, occurred during the elections for the Ninth Knesset on May 17, 1977. This was a significant turning point in Israel’s political history. Likud, led by Menachem Begin, defeated the Alignment (the continuation of the legendary Mapai) after more than thirty years of monolithic rule.
Likud secured 43 seats in these elections—a gain of 12 seats compared to the previous elections—while the Alignment plummeted to 32 seats, 19 fewer than in 1973. Shas won four seats, and Tehiya secured two. Both parties gained popularity due to public disappointment with the political establishment.
The election results reflected the accumulated frustration with the government, stemming from the military failure in the war, the public sentiment that the Labor government bore responsibility for the security debacle and a yearning for genuine change.
Those years’ deep political and social transformations led the public to seek an alternative to Mapai’s rule. This search resulted in the founding of Dash (the Democratic Movement for Change), led by Yigael Yadin, which offered something different to the public and achieved remarkable success, winning 15 seats. Although Dash did not become the kingmaker Yadin had hoped for and was not initially part of Begin’s coalition, it later joined his government and was awarded several ministerial portfolios.
The Connection to the “Iron Swords” War
Like the Yom Kippur War, the Iron Swords War has shaken Israel’s defense and political systems. The public’s sense of failure has spurred widespread criticism of the military and political leadership. The immediate impact of the war is also evident on social media, which has become a central platform for disseminating criticism and amplifying public demands for transparency and answers from the country’s leaders.
As in the 1970s, the war’s influence on voting patterns and Israeli politics is becoming apparent, although, for now, it is reflected only in polls. Since October 7, opposition parties have gained strength in surveys, and a growing sense of mistrust in the system and a desire for “something different,” similar to 1973 and 1977, may lead to significant political changes in the next elections.
Comparing the two wars reveals both similarities and key differences. In both cases, the public’s sense of failure stemmed from military shortcomings and perceived defeat. However, in the 1970s, political changes occurred gradually, and the war’s impact on governance was not immediate. In contrast, today’s political processes may unfold more rapidly, primarily due to the influence of modern communication tools and social media platforms, which allow for swift dissemination of criticism and immediate demands for change.
The political upheaval 1977 demonstrated how wars and security crises can trigger changes in the political system. The gradual processes that unfolded at the time show that public disappointment can lead to political shifts. However, these changes are not always immediate, and the effects of such crises may only become evident over the long term. Time will tell whether the impact of the “Iron Swords” War will manifest politically shortly or whether, as before, the processes will be more gradual and complex.
As noted, alongside the fall of the Alignment – an expression of the public’s “enough is enough” sentiment – and the rise of Likud, Dash in 1977 presented an alternative and offered another path to change. Today, alongside support for some opposition parties, Naftali Bennett is emerging as a rising force, gaining significant public support in polls as people search for an alternative to the current leadership. Much like the 1970s, the “Iron Swords” War may catalyze significant political changes as public demands for accountability, transparency, and swift correction of failures grow louder.