The hostage deal signed by Israel and Hamas was “unavoidable,” and quitting the government would have led to the end of the war and to further departures from the government and consequently an election, Finance Minister and Religious Zionist Party chairman Bezalel Smotrich wrote in a lengthy post on Facebook on Sunday.
Smotrich explained in the post why he decided to remain in the government despite his opposition to the deal.
“I have a national responsibility for victory and security, and I am ready to pay the price. Because I don't run from the battlefield in the middle of a war, even after a bitter defeat in one of its battles, just to keep my hands clean. I continue to fight and strive for victory," Smotrich began.
Contrary to “childish spin,” the deal was unavoidable, and a threat to bring down the government would not have stopped the deal, Smotrich wrote. “Ultimatums would have brought more ultimatums” from the coalition’s haredi parties, who would also take advantage of the situation for their own goals, he wrote. In addition, Netanyahu had a “security net” of the “left-wing parties” to push the deal through, but this would have led to an end to the war and to Hamas remaining in Gaza in future stages as well.
The “security net” would only have lasted for a few months and would have led to an election that “in the best case scenario” would lead to a government “similar to the current one,” and in the “worst case scenario” to a “left-wing government” with “terrorists and Israel haters,” Smotrich argued later in the post.
Making Netanyahu a 'strong winner'
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also would not have entered a “frontal conflict with Trump” by shooting down the deal, and he would look weak as he capitulated to his right-wing partners. Trump only likes doing business with “strong winners,” and Smotrich did not want Netanyahu to look like a “lame duck,” he wrote.
In addition, shooting down the deal out of “political considerations of the government’s survival” (quote in source) when it was already clear that there was a deal would have led to a “galactic explosion,” as it would put Netanyahu in conflict with a majority of the people, who “unfortunately surrendered to short-term emotions and supports the deal.” This would have led to mass protests and an enormous “social and political crisis.” There was “no chance” Netanyahu would have done this, Smotrich said. In veiled criticism of National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, who exited the government over the deal, Smotrich wrote that he is not an “irresponsible pyromaniac.”
Smotrich continued that the easy decision would have been to join Ben-Gvir and “keep his hands clean”. However, this was “national irresponsibility” and was akin to “leaving the battlefield in the midst of war because we lost one battle.”
In addition to the problems that will arise from releasing terrorists and the IDF retreating from parts of Gaza, the “strategic” problem was that “taking hostages brings Israel to its knees” and will serve as an incentive for it to happen again.
Smotrich said that he preferred to remain in the government and claimed that he had led Netanyahu to agree to “create certainty and anchor” a continuation of the war in a way that would lead to the downfall of Hamas: “No more raids with the entry and exit” of IDF soldiers, but rather complete control of territory and “methodological cleansing” of Hamas terror cells; the IDF taking over distribution of humanitarian aid in the Gaza Strip via “temporary military rule”; and more.
This requires the “replacement” of the top IDF brass, who are “incapable and unwilling” to carry out these directives, he argued.