Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich is disappointed with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s plan to take control of Gaza City, as he believes it does not go far enough, a spokesperson for the Religious Zionism chair says.
“The proposal spearheaded by Netanyahu and approved by the cabinet may sound good, but it’s actually more of the same,” the spokesperson says.
“This is not an operation to conquer the Strip, take full military control of the territory and push for a decisive outcome — the only way to ensure victory, lasting security and the return of the hostages — but a specific and dangerous operation whose sole purpose is to return Hamas to the negotiating room — a goal that isn’t a goal of the war,” the statement adds.
He predicts that once again, Netanyahu will promise that Israel is going “all the way,” only to then, “at the moment of truth, withdraw from the field after dozens of heroes have died and without any real operational achievements.”
According to the spokesperson, Smotrich believes the decision is “immoral, unethical and not Zionist.”
Offering more insight into Smotrich’s stance, the Israel Hayom newspaper reports that the far-right lawmaker, who is also a minister within the Defense Ministry, voted against Netanyahu’s proposal to take over Gaza City during last night’s security cabinet meeting.
Citing unnamed sources, the newspaper reports that Smotrich went so far as to agree with IDF Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir, whom he is frequently reported to be at odds with, that the plan was not a good one, and would not bring Israel closer to its stated aims.
He is said to have told the security cabinet that if Netanyahu truly wants his plan to lead to “victory,” then the premier must “explicitly announce that he will no longer agree to a partial deal.”
“That way, Hamas will understand that it has two choices left: Surrendering in an agreement or destruction.”
“As long as there’s no such announcement from the prime minister, it is as though the goal of this big step is to again reach a partial deal,” he is quoted as having said. “So the content of the decision does not match its title, and that is not something I can agree to.”