Three years after October 7, Israel’s security threats have no single source.
They can emerge inside an aircraft bound for Tel Aviv, beneath Gaza as Hamas rebuilds its tunnels, or within a political system that demands sacrifice from some while shielding others.
That was a central argument at Reichman University’s ICT summit: Israel remains vulnerable because the habits that left it exposed have survived the war.
“The next disaster is just a matter of time,” former prime minister and BeYachad party leader Naftali Bennett warned.
His speech linked three threats usually discussed separately: terrorism in the sky, Hamas rebuilding underground, and unequal obligations at home. In his account, all three reflect a state that relies on its citizens’ courage while its leadership fails to change.
“Citizens take 100% accountability and responsibility, and the government takes zero.”
Bennett described how close the flight had come to catastrophe. He said roughly 180 people could have been killed without the Indian captain and the Israeli civilians who intervened.
The rescue was extraordinary. But his political point was that such rescues have become too familiar: people caught in danger act, while the institutions responsible for protecting them face questions afterward. A government cannot rely on courage at the last moment to replace prevention.
The same criticism shaped his account of Gaza. Bennett said Hamas was rebuilding its capabilities, including its tunnels, and preparing again near Israeli communities.
“Our lookout soldiers are once again seeing Hamas preparing,” he said. Residents of the Gaza envelope even told him during a recent visit: “It feels like October 6 again.”
Bennett also recalled bringing intelligence about tunnels reaching toward Israel to the cabinet. According to his account, Netanyahu maintained that Hamas was deterred and that destroying the tunnels was unnecessary. His claims about past decisions and current rebuilding require corroboration, but the failure he described was clear: allowing assumptions to outweigh evidence.
“When you’re so convinced you know, you stop asking and listening,” he said.
His warning was that military success does not remove the need to watch, question and act. An enemy can suffer heavy losses and still rebuild. Destroying tunnels yesterday does not mean new ones are not being dug today.
But Bennett’s strongest language concerned Israel itself.
“This is real suicide,” he said of a system that, he argued, allows Haredi children to be educated against the state, democracy and military service while leaving them without basic skills needed for work.
His concern went beyond the shortage of soldiers. A state fighting prolonged conflicts needs recruits, taxpayers and an economy that can support its defense. It also needs citizens to believe that responsibility is shared. Bennett presented the lack of military service and core education as a threat to all three.
“Those who do not serve or learn math and English will not get a shekel,” he said.
The “suicide” charge accused Israel of weakening itself through political choices. His argument was that the state continues to support arrangements that reduce its ability to withstand external threats and place more pressure on those already serving and working.
Three years since October 7: Captivity survivor Aviva Siegel unveils book ‘Survived to Tell’
For Bennett, changing these arrangements must be a priority for the next government. His proposal to exclude draft evaders and those encouraging evasion from the security cabinet made that argument concrete: the power to send people into battle should come with a commitment to service.
The summit’s theme, “The Evolving Architecture of Terror: States, Proxies, and Technology,” placed these domestic questions within a wider security debate.
Despite their different political backgrounds, Bennett, opposition leader Yair Lapid and Democrats party leader Yair Golan shared a central argument: Israel’s security depends on how it is governed, how it shares responsibility and how it manages its relations abroad.
Golan linked Hamas’s recovery to the lack of a political plan for Gaza. “Instead of eliminating Hamas, it is perpetuating Hamas’s rule,” he said of the government. His argument was that military operations cannot deliver lasting victory without an alternative administration.
“There is no military strength without diplomatic strength,” he said.
Lapid acknowledged the hostility, antisemitism and influence campaigns Israel faces. But he argued that these threats do not excuse its leaders’ language and decisions. Israel’s efforts to challenge damaging portrayals are weakened when ministers make statements that reinforce them.
He also connected diplomatic isolation with internal division. Hamas, he argued, wanted Israel to become fearful, closed and consumed by conflict, losing the qualities that made it successful.
“If we destroy ourselves from within, they will be able to destroy us from outside,” he said.