By: Fern Sidman

As negotiations intensify around a potential U.S.-brokered agreement for the release of hostages still held in Gaza, National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir has emerged as one of the most vocal dissenters within Israel’s governing coalition. According to sources cited in a report on Sunday at Israel National News (INN), Ben Gvir has made clear that he cannot endorse any deal that includes the release of convicted terrorists, even if it secures the freedom of all remaining hostages.

The stance highlights the profound ideological fault lines inside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet at a moment when Israel faces wrenching choices between military escalation, humanitarian considerations, and the yearning of families whose loved ones remain in Hamas captivity nearly a year after the atrocities of October 7.

Negotiators have described the current proposal as unprecedented: for the first time, Hamas has indicated it would be willing to release every single Israeli hostage — living or deceased — under the framework sketched by Washington and accepted in principle by Jerusalem. The plan, which has been under discussion in Cairo and Doha, hinges on a phased ceasefire, a prisoner exchange, and guarantees of humanitarian access to Gaza.

While the outline has won cautious endorsements from both the United States and some Israeli defense officials, Ben Gvir has doubled down on his opposition. According to the information provided in the INN report, his aides stressed that “from the outset, we’ve said that leaving anyone behind is unacceptable, and partial deals are a disaster.” They added that Ben Gvir sees no justification for freeing large numbers of Palestinians convicted of terrorism, warning that such concessions would embolden Hamas and undermine Israel’s long-term security.

Ben Gvir has repeatedly argued that only uncompromising military force can bring about the release of the hostages. As his associates told INN, “the appropriate path to securing the hostages’ freedom is through intensified military pressure and a complete cessation of humanitarian aid.”

This position is consistent with the minister’s longstanding view that humanitarian supplies delivered to Gaza merely prolong Hamas’s capacity to wage war. Ben Gvir has publicly clashed with Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and even Netanyahu himself over the continuation of limited aid shipments into the enclave, insisting that food, fuel, and medicine invariably fall into Hamas’s hands.

“The lesson of the past year is crystal clear,” one of Ben Gvir’s allies explained in comments reported by INN. “Every time Israel compromises, Hamas grows stronger. Every time Israel exerts overwhelming force, Hamas comes closer to collapse. That is the only language they understand.”

Despite his fierce opposition to the current outline, Ben Gvir is not expected to resign from the coalition in the immediate term. As the INN report noted, his red line is not simply the contours of a hostage deal, but the very survival of Hamas.

“Ben Gvir is expected to tell the Prime Minister during their meeting: If Hamas continues to exist, in any form, that’s a red line. We will not remain in the government,” his associates said. This warning underscores his view that even a technocratic or civilian façade for Hamas would amount to the terrorist group’s continued survival — an outcome he deems unacceptable.

For Netanyahu, this creates a precarious balancing act. While families of the hostages have mounted increasingly desperate campaigns urging the government to make a deal, the Prime Minister cannot afford to alienate his right of center flank, which could collapse the coalition if it perceives Hamas emerging intact.

Ben Gvir’s stance also reflects the broader political dynamics inside Israel’s governing coalition, which relies heavily on the support of his party, Otzma Yehudit, and Bezalel Smotrich’s Religious Zionism faction. Both men have demanded maximalist outcomes in Gaza, including the reestablishment of Jewish communities in the Strip and the permanent dismantling of Hamas.

INN has frequently reported on these tensions, noting that the right of center ministers see themselves as guardians of ideological red lines at a time when international mediators and pragmatic voices inside the Israeli security establishment are urging compromise. Netanyahu’s maneuvering space is thus tightly constrained, as he tries to satisfy the demands of grieving families, avoid a rupture with Washington, and hold together a fractious coalition.

The families of the remaining hostages, meanwhile, have grown increasingly anguished and vocal. Demonstrations outside the Knesset and Netanyahu’s residence have demanded immediate action, with some accusing the government of sacrificing their loved ones for political survival.

According to the information contained in the INN report, several hostage families have expressed willingness to accept painful concessions if it means securing the release of their relatives. “Every day matters,” one family member said at a recent rally. “We don’t care about politics. We want them home.”

This divergence between the emotional pleas of the families and the ideological rigidity of ministers like Ben Gvir encapsulates the central dilemma facing Israeli decision-makers: how to balance short-term humanitarian imperatives with long-term strategic goals.

The stakes are further complicated by Hamas’s own maneuvers. As the INN report observed, the terrorist organization’s responses to U.S. and Israeli proposals have been riddled with caveats, conditions, and deliberate ambiguity. While Hamas has agreed in principle to release all hostages, it insists that the “necessary conditions on the ground” be met — language that Israeli officials interpret as a demand for substantial withdrawals and the cessation of IDF operations.

These ambiguities fuel skepticism among figures like Ben Gvir, who argue that Hamas has no intention of genuinely disarming or relinquishing control of Gaza. “We cannot afford illusions,” one of his allies told INN. “Hamas wants to survive, and every deal that lets them survive is a defeat for Israel.”

Beyond the immediate debate over the hostage deal, Ben Gvir’s opposition reflects a larger strategic question: what should Israel’s ultimate goal in Gaza be? For the minister and his supporters, the answer is unequivocal — the total dismantling of Hamas, regardless of international pressure or humanitarian concerns.

For others in the Israeli political and security establishment, however, such absolutism is both unrealistic and counterproductive. Senior defense officials have warned that a prolonged campaign aimed at completely eradicating Hamas could drag Israel into a costly and indefinite occupation of Gaza, while alienating allies and fueling international condemnation.

INN has highlighted this debate repeatedly, emphasizing the divide between those who see any compromise as betrayal and those who argue that pragmatic diplomacy is the only way to secure Israel’s long-term security.

For Netanyahu, the stakes could hardly be higher. His legacy is on the line, and his government’s survival hinges on balancing the irreconcilable demands of hostage families, international partners, and hardline coalition partners. Ben Gvir’s warning that he will leave the government if Hamas survives — “in any form” — raises the specter of a coalition collapse, potentially triggering new elections at a moment of profound national crisis.

At the same time, Netanyahu faces relentless pressure from Washington, where President Donald Trump has staked his reputation on brokering a deal that could secure hostages’ release and create the conditions for a broader Middle East peace framework.

As Israel stands at this crossroads, the divide between Ben Gvir’s hardline stance and the pragmatic impulses of others in the government illustrates the extraordinary difficulty of decision-making in wartime.

According to the INN report, Ben Gvir has drawn his red line: any outcome that allows Hamas to persist — whether in uniform, in suits, or under the guise of civilian administration — will be intolerable. For now, he remains in the coalition, but his warning is unmistakable: compromise that permits Hamas’s survival would be the breaking point.

In the coming days, Netanyahu must decide whether to pursue a deal that could reunite Israeli families with their loved ones but risk fracturing his coalition, or to heed the warnings of his far-right ministers and continue pressing for Hamas’s total destruction, even at the cost of prolonging the hostages’ ordeal.

Either path carries enormous consequences for Israel’s future, for the fate of the hostages, and for the Prime Minister’s political survival.