If there is any insight from the crisis in the negotiations between Netanyahu and Smotrich, it is this – even in Netanyahu’s sixth term as prime minister, there is nothing new under the sun, and more precisely, there is no place under Netanyahu’s ruling sun for religious Zionism.
The speed of returning to the old patterns can compete with the speed of light. But not only in his familiar conduct towards religious Zionism, the patterns are back to haunt them, but in burning fundamental issues that have been waiting patiently for nearly two years.
As early as the evening of November 1st, when the dimensions of the victory slowly began to become clear, Netanyahu gave a careful and conciliatory speech to the losing side and included in it a commitment to a series of issues: ‘to increase the scope of agreement between the parties, a commitment to protect the rights of every citizen, to fight terrorism, to fight against Iran, to maintain Jerusalem is united, bring more peace agreements, end the Israeli-Arab conflict (somewhat puzzling statement…), and agree that we are brothers’.
Netanyahu’s speech on the eve of the victory did not include a single commitment to the ideas and beliefs that were the mighty political engine that brought down the malicious government and smashed its components to pieces. The speech did not include a single word about the historic opportunity afforded to the right-wing bloc to implement a series of amendments in the areas of governance, restoring security in the Yosh, curbing the Palestinian occupation in the Yosh, regulating the settlements, fighting criminal organizations and saving the Negev and the Galilee, restoring the balance between the three authorities, a passage The overcoming and more.
All of these issues spurred not only the masses of voters of the ‘extreme’ right-wing parties to the polls on election day, but also the masses of voters of the Likud party who demand to see this time a full right-wing government and not a weak and loose right-minus, but until the moment of writing these lines Netanyahu refrained from declaring His intentions on these issues are overwhelming, with the exception of the emerging coalition clauses facing Ben Gvir, out of increasing time pressure but without any sign that this is a real commitment.
These issues, it must be remembered, were at the heart of the moral considerations for the steadfast struggle of the right-wing bloc in the outgoing government, right before our eyes these days, thanks to the combination of visible miracles and the sweat-of-the-nose work of the entire opposition. But it was the religious Zionist party, led by Smotrich, which, despite its limited size at the time – four seats in total, its weight as the provider of ideological, moral, strategic, tactical and practical power contributed the decisive political capital of the collapse of the dictatorship that sabotaged Israeli democracy, into itself.
It does not seem that Netanyahu needed the advice and recommendations of his American friends on whether to use Smotrich to overthrow the government. However, he needed and how he needed his rhetorical and strategic skills, his wisdom, his intelligence and his resourcefulness, and his unreserved support, showing rare loyalty despite the intense criticism he had of Netanyahu.
Every time the voters of religious Zionism approached him with questions and doubts about whether it was possible to believe Netanyahu, he returned and stated that he was impressed that Netanyahu understands the magnitude of the hour, learned and learned lessons and that a full right-wing government should be formed with him and only him, and contributed to allaying the doubts of many in the camp.
So the disclosure of the recordings of things that Smotrich said passionately in a discreet conversation, only highlights even more the greatness of the nobility of soul that he demonstrated when he insisted on teaching a right and passionately defending, openly, throughout the last two years, in the media and during the election period, those who were seen as the main responsible for a long series of serious governance failures in the field Violence, terrorism and crime pervaded the country during the years of his rule.
In fact, Smotrich served as Netanyahu’s main advocate of honesty who trained the hearts of the religious Zionist public to come out and vote for him and give him another chance, which Netanyahu understands is no less than a miracle.
And yet, the cooperation and the unity of the ranks within the camp played a decisive role in the overthrow of the government. After the right-wing camp succeeded in bringing to an end a government that threatened both democracy and Israel’s national security, it seems that the danger has not passed: two new-old dangers threaten them:
One is the danger of internal division in the camp. This, in light of the fact that Netanyahu has refined this unity and is spitting into the well of religious Zionism, from which he drank living water during the past two years and to which he owes his renewed political life. The second danger is the submission of our leadership to the foreign intrusion and the primal fears of it.
The citizens of Israel are surely asking themselves the following question these days: Who is actually conducting the negotiations with Smotrich? Biden or Netanyahu? Who is the real sovereign in the State of Israel and who makes the appropriate and correct decisions? The citizens of Israel must wake up to an unthinkable reality by any sovereign country in the world, and to protest the US’s attempts to stop major historical processes from foreign considerations that are certainly not in our favor, and to make it clear to Darya that only the citizens of Israel will choose their leaders.
Netanyahu’s psychological fear of placing red lines before the ambassador and making it clear to him that in no way is it acceptable for us to interfere in the internal affairs of the State of Israel, even from the greatness of our friendship, is a worrying reflection of a reality that we are afraid to admit, a reality that our independence is partial or, in fact, fake. In the reality of simulated independence, it is difficult to protect our historical rights and our national security from home and abroad.
The warning of American Ambassador Tom Neides to Netanyahu that ‘the appointment of the Minister of Defense should take into account the intimate relationship between Israel and the United States’ should have been answered by Netanyahu with the following unequivocal statement: A relationship in which one party decides for the other is not a relationship intimate relationship A country that is interested in an intimate relationship must respect the independence of the other country and the decision of its voters even if it does not coincide with the interests of the former.
A determined and upright stand of our leadership before the world leaders from the unity of the ranks will earn Israel the respect it deserves as an equal country among equals, independent and sovereign.