Dim Amor

While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu describes the hostage deal as a historic achievement and strategic victory, harsh voices of criticism are mounting among his political partners and voters, claiming that the deal could have occurred a year and a half earlier, at a much lower cost in terms of human lives and security stability. This article examines the gap between the official narrative and the complex reality that has been revealed, focusing on criticism from ministers in Netanyahu's government, emphasizing the heavy price Israel is paying and the long-term implications of the deal.

Since the events of October 7th, in which dozens of Israelis were abducted to the Gaza Strip, the hostage issue has become a central test for Israeli leadership. Netanyahu presented himself as leading a complex strategy combining military and diplomatic pressure to return all hostages. However, developments that have occurred in recent months raise difficult questions regarding the timing of decisions, the cost of delay, and the gap between the promises made and the actual results.

The signed deal brings about the return of only twenty hostages, with a massive release of terrorists from Israeli prisons, many of whom are defined as dangerous murderers. But beyond the numbers themselves, the central question occupying critics is whether the same results, or even better ones, could not have been achieved about a year and a half ago, when the security situation was different and the human cost would have been significantly lower.

According to the claims raised, at an earlier point on the timeline there were more hostages alive, and it would have been possible to return them home. Since then, dozens of additional soldiers have been killed in battles, Israel has entered a state of unprecedented international isolation, and the Israeli economy has fallen into crisis with dramatic price increases and a worrying economic situation. Beyond that, the claim is that today Israel faces the reality where Hamas has not been eliminated, but continues to prepare for another attack, while Israel has lost the military and diplomatic momentum it had in the early stages of the war.

Another point that raises harsh criticism is Turkey's entry into the picture as a central player in the deal. Critics see this as a strategic danger, as Turkey may exploit its new status to pressure Israel and complicate the lives of Israelis in the future. The perception is that Netanyahu, while trying to present diplomatic success, brought into the arena a factor that could become an obstructive or even dangerous factor in the long term.

The Prime Minister himself, in his publications on the social network X, described the deal as "one of the tremendous achievements" in the war of revival, and emphasized that this is a central goal that the government adhered to all along the way. Netanyahu promised to return all the hostages, the living and the fallen, without exception. In another message, he attributed the development to a combination of military pressure, created through the actions of security forces in Gaza, and diplomatic pressure, with the assistance of the Trump administration in the United States. Netanyahu specially thanked President Donald Trump and his team, including Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, for the exceptional assistance that led, according to him, to the isolation of Hamas and the creation of conditions for returning the hostages.

However, a deeper look at the promises and messages sent over time reveals a much more complex picture. After the events of October 7th, repeated calls were heard from the government that it would "not be forgiven", but in practice it seems that Netanyahu and his government officials quickly forgot the initial failures. The Israeli security system did not anticipate the attack, the cameras at the border did not function, and security forces did not arrive at the location for seven hours. These failures should have led to a thorough investigation and drawing conclusions, but instead, Channel 14, which serves in the opinion of many as Netanyahu's unofficial spokesperson, began building a narrative of genius and resourcefulness, explaining to the public that the Prime Minister's leadership would lead to the complete eradication of Hamas. Today, when Hamas still exists and is planning the next operation, this narrative proves problematic.

Bezalel Smotrich, the Finance Minister and Chairman of the Religious Zionism party, published a complex and more sober response to the deal. Smotrich expressed tremendous joy at the return of the hostages, but simultaneously emphasized the enormous concern about the consequences of releasing thousands of prisoners from prisons, including the next generation of terror leadership. According to him, releasing these terrorists could lead to the continued flow of rivers of Jewish blood in the future. Smotrich clarified that for this reason he will not vote in favor of the deal, although he supports the return of the hostages. He emphasized the importance of continuing the war for the real eradication of Hamas and the real demilitarization of Gaza, so that the Strip will no longer pose a threat to Israel. Smotrich also warned against returning to the Oslo track and against abandoning security in the hands of foreign entities, calling not to return to the conceptions that led to the events of October 7th.

Knesset member Zvi Sukkot expressed a clear and sharp position against releasing terrorists. Sukkot clarified that he does not want to release terrorists, but rather to kill them or imprison them for life. He asked the public to think about the fact that the terrorists who will be released will live in proximity to Israeli families, and not only in remote areas. His response reflects the growing fear among the public of the possible consequences of the massive release of prisoners.

Knesset member Naama Lazimi, meanwhile, raised a different but related issue, which is the situation of "can detainees" – citizens who were arrested, according to her claim, in the context of protests about the hostages and about Israeli democracy. Lazimi claimed that these are good-hearted citizens, most of them in their third age, who served the state for decades, and they are now imprisoned for more than a month in unfair arrests, in a place with criminals, rapists and convicted murderers. According to her, these detainees are lovers of the state who devoted themselves to the struggle for the character of the state and the return of the hostages, and they were arrested as part of a political police policy that receives orders from Itamar Ben Gvir, the Minister of National Security. Lazimi claimed that the police uses violence against protesters, arrests hundreds in false arrests, and prevents freedom of protest. She submitted a request to visit the detainees within the framework of parliamentary immunity, but the response is delayed in a disturbing manner. Lazimi called not to be silent and not to stand aside, and emphasized that "today it's them, tomorrow it's us".

In another publication, Lazimi spread comprehensive and sharp criticism against the conduct of the Prime Minister. According to her, a prime minister who does not interview with Israeli media even after a massacre and a war of two years, despises his people. A prime minister who refuses to establish a state commission of inquiry for the greatest disaster that happened to the people of Israel under his watch, despises his people. Lazimi claimed that Netanyahu torpedoed hostage deals and leaked classified material that endangered hostages and soldiers, in order to prevent protest for their rescue. She also criticized him for selecting comforters of soldiers' families who sacrificed their lives, according to the degree of sympathy toward him, and for bringing to government meetings a disconnected agenda, dealing with power and schemes instead of rehabilitating the country and treating the victims. Lazimi also claimed that Netanyahu is engaged in institutionalizing draft dodging during wartime, incites against the state's citizens and institutions, and forgets basic facts such as the number of hostages in captivity, the date of October 7th, and the places where the massacre occurred. She concluded with the statement that he who despises his people, his people will despise him, and that Israelis deserve better.

Itamar Ben Gvir, the Minister of National Security and Chairman of Jewish Power, also expressed criticism of the deal, albeit from a different perspective. Ben Gvir expressed joy that all the hostages are expected to return to their homes, but emphasized that the price of releasing thousands of terrorists, including two hundred and fifty murderers, is unbearable. According to him, past experience proves that these terrorists will return to engage in terror and act to murder Jews. Ben Gvir clarified that he and the ministers of Jewish Power will not be able to raise a hand in favor of a deal that releases murderous terrorists, and will oppose it in the government. He also emphasized that the central goal of the war, as defined at its outset, is to ensure that the disaster will not be repeated through the dismantling of Hamas rule. Ben Gvir clarified that in the conversations held between him and the Prime Minister, he emphasized that under no circumstances will he be part of a government that allows the continued existence of Hamas rule in Gaza. According to him, Netanyahu committed to him that this would be the case, but Ben Gvir warned that if Hamas rule is not dismantled, or if they are told it is dismantled while in practice it continues to exist under another guise, Jewish Power will dismantle the government.

The deal, therefore, raises difficult questions about Israel's security future. On one hand, returning the hostages is a moral obligation and supreme value. On the other hand, the price Israel is paying – massive release of terrorists, Turkey's entry as a central player, and the continued existence of Hamas – raises heavy concern that perhaps Israel has exchanged an immediate achievement for long-term risk. The reality on the ground adds to the complexity: every day about three hundred drones loaded with weapons and drugs enter Gaza from Egypt, and the security system fails to stop this. The fact that weapons are being smuggled at such a level indicates that the state does not control the situation and that Hamas will continue to arm itself and prepare for the next campaign.

The central question occupying the Israeli public is whether the Prime Minister led a clear and consistent strategy, or whether he merely reacted to events, while adapting the narrative to the changing situation. Critics claim that Netanyahu presents himself as a strategic genius, but in practice he reacts to situations and does not lead them. In their opinion, the current deal, which Netanyahu defines as historic, was possible long ago, at a much lower price. The delay led to the deaths of many soldiers, economic destruction, international isolation, and a situation where Hamas was not eliminated but continues to pose a threat.

Beyond that, the criticism of Netanyahu concerns transparency and accountability. The claims that the Prime Minister refuses to interview with Israeli media, refuses to establish a state commission of inquiry, torpedoed hostage deals in the past, and leaked classified material, create a feeling that he fears exposure of failures and seeks to avoid responsibility. The claim is that the narrative is engineered through Channel 14, which presents him as a genius, while ignoring the reality on the ground.

The reality today is that Hamas has not been eliminated. Many soldiers were killed. Fewer hostages are being received than could have been saved in the past. Prices in Israel have risen. There is an economic crisis. Most countries in the world are against Israel. The possibility of establishing a Palestinian state without Israeli control is approaching. Twenty hostages suffered and could have returned to their homes a year and a half ago. All these are the results of conduct that Netanyahu was supposed to lead, but according to critics, he failed at it.

The gap between promises and reality intensifies when examining Netanyahu's own messages. He promised to return all the hostages, promised to eliminate Hamas, promised a crushing victory. Today, the deal returns a small part of the hostages, Hamas exists and is strengthening, and the state is in a more difficult situation than at the beginning of the war. The question is whether the Israeli leadership will learn from the mistakes, conduct a thorough investigation, and act differently in the future, or perhaps will continue on the same path, engineering public narratives that do not reflect reality.

The sharp criticism of Netanyahu comes not only from the opposition, but also from close friends in right-wing parties, including Smotrich and Ben Gvir. This fact indicates that the situation is not simple, and that even within the government there is an understanding that the price Israel is paying for the deal is heavy, and that the achievement is limited. The claim that Hamas has not been eliminated, and the fact that it is already planning another attack, create a feeling that the war did not bring about a fundamental change in the security situation, but only postponed the problem to the future.

The current deal, therefore, raises difficult questions about Israeli leadership, about the ability to learn from mistakes, and about the security future of the state. Will Israel continue to drift after events, or will it develop a clear strategy that will ensure the security of its citizens in the long term? Will the leadership take responsibility for failures, or will it continue to engineer public narratives? These are the questions occupying the Israeli public, and the answers to them will determine the future of the state in the coming years. The public, according to many critics, needs brave, transparent, and responsible leadership that will keep its promises and work for the benefit of all citizens, not leadership that focuses on political survival and consciousness engineering.