Finance Minister Betzalel Smotrich (Religious Zionism) said in a radio interview on Tuesday that the decision by Naftali Bennett (Together) to include Mansour Abbas’s United Arab List faction in his 2021-2022 “change government” was worse for the country than the governmental failures connected to the horrific Hamas attacks on Simḥat Torah/October 7, 2023.
The finance minister made clear his deep disdain for Bennett, accusing him of “turning his back” on his voters following the 2021 elections and breaking multiple promises to the public in order to become prime minister.
Asked by the interviewer which was “more grave” – the formation of a coalition with UAL or the failures of October 7 — Smotrich replied: “Of course, the formation of the government with Mansour Abbas.”
While he acknowledged that October 7 was “a terrible failure that must be probed,” he called it “a tactical failure” based on “a 30- to 40-year paradigm” that convinced many Israelis to support territorial concessions.
To this, the interviewer asked: “Did you just say that forming a government with Mansour Abbas was worse than the October 7 massacre?”
“Absolutely,” Smotrich responded. “Intention is far worse than error.”
“Someone who consciously sold the State of Israel to its enemies — the Islamic Movement is an enemy, the sister-movement of Hamas — to enslave the state to its enemies… it’s much more severe.”
Pressed again if he saw Bennett’s actions as worse than the events of October 7, 2023, Smotrich said, “It’s horrible. I don’t understand. Do you want a contest of disasters?”
“You asked me, as a politician, what I think is worse,” he continued.
“A politician who lied, stole [votes], betrayed his values, partners, and promises, and sold the country to terror supporters, assassinated democracy and public trust in the political system and in Zionism, is a thousand times worse than the biggest failure imaginable, when that is a failure and not a purposeful act.”
Following a storm of criticism by figures in the opposition and the media, Smotrich issued a follow-up statement claiming that his words had been “distorted” and accusing his critics of playing “petty politics.”
“The question I was asked and which I answered was what was the worse political act — going for a government with Hamas knowingly and on purpose and due to lust for honor and power, or sitting in a government that had a terrible massacre happen on its watch in which Hamas attacked Israel and murdered thousands of people.”
“So yes, going knowingly to a government with Hamas while lying and stealing votes is the gravest political act Israeli politics has known.”
“The massacre Hamas committed is one of the most terrible we have known since the Holocaust, and nothing compares with it,” he added, claiming that the media was “trying to take my words out of context and belittle the massacre.”
Many political figures and journalists clearly – and likely intentionally – missed the finance minister’s point. But Smotrich, due to what can only be described as provincial thinking and narrow mindedness, misses the bigger picture and a significant opportunity.
There is nothing inherently wrong with including UAL in a government under the right conditions. In fact, if the current coalition were to include Abbas and his faction, it could completely redefine the state of Jewish-Palestinian relations in the country. It would strengthen the bonds between the more Islamic-oriented Palestinians and the Israelis most deeply connected to Jewish identity.
What makes Smotrich’s focus on Bennett’s inclusion of Abbas so disappointing is that the finance minister represents the exact sector of Israeli society that should be most engaged with Palestinians.
For decades, the most Jewishly disconnected and westernized Israelis have monopolized the nation’s relationship with our neighbors. This has not only led to misplaced hopes of attaining Palestinian liberation through a two-state paradigm but also a misunderstanding of Jewish identity and the Jewish connection to this land.
Abbas has clearly differentiated himself from other Palestinian political factions by focusing on what his community shares in common with the Jews. He has also made clear on numerous occasions that he seeks a different kind of relationship with Israel. And this is an important opportunity for Smotrich and the public he represents to take a leading role in redefining what our relationship can be.
Unlike the Israelis who’ve negotiated with Palestinians in the past, Smotrich actually lives Jewish history and has a clear understanding of what renewed political independence means within the context of our people’s story. Adding the UAL to a coalition comprised of the parties that make up the current government would be a chance to explore different models of relationships than the one that has existed between our peoples under Zionism.
If Smotrich were to stop making this the issue on which to attack Bennett and to instead start formulating clear terms under which he’d be willing to work with Abbas, it could mark a significant turning point in not only Israeli politics but also our national trajectory.
This is especially important given the fact that the “Palestinian Question” has long been weaponized by the United States to force the partition of our land into two separate states. Fostering better relations between Palestinians and the Jews most deeply connected to the land of Israel could further derail Washington’s two-state agenda.
The big question is whether or not Smotrich even understands the extent to which the Americans are determined to divide our land (or the extent to which fostering ties with Palestinians could derail this agenda).
It’s time for the Jews most deeply connected to Jewish identity and our homeland to begin engaging directly with Palestinians in order to see if we can forge a new kind of relationship – not one of colonizer and colonized but one of two proud peoples deeply connected to this land, who can live together in mutual respect according to structures that allow both peoples to experience our fundamental needs met.
Smotrich and the sociopolitical tribe he represents are, in many important ways, more advanced than other sectors of Israeli society. But they still suffer from many shortcomings that prevent them from reaching their potential.
A frequent side effect of being so deeply rooted in one’s own identity, culture, and national story is a provincial ignorance of the outside world. Smotrich exemplifies this double sided coin of rootedness and provinciality that often blinds him and his camp to geopolitical realities – especially in regards to the threat posed to Israel by Washington and its agenda to partition our country.
If Smotrich could begin to see the realities of US imperialism and stop living in a narrow world in which “the Arabs” – the local enemy tribe in front of him – are the primary threat to be resisted and defeated, he would likely realize that the best way to strengthen Israel’s hold over the lands won from Jordan during the Six Day War would be to “conquer” Israel’s relationship with the Palestinians and to neutralize the Palestinians as an American weapon against Israel.
