Ben-Gvir Threatens to Topple Netanyahu Gov’t; Joy Over Release of Hostages Dims as He Warns of ‘Unbearable Price’

By: Fern Sidman

Itamar Ben-Gvir, the chairman of Otzma Yehudit and Israel’s minister of national security, struck a starkly ambivalent tone on Thursday as the government prepared to formalize an agreement to secure the return of all hostages abducted during the October 7 rampage. Speaking after a tense Cabinet session, Ben-Gvir acknowledged the “joy, happiness and excitement” that would accompany the expected homecoming of surviving hostages and the return of the dead for burial—but he warned bluntly that those feelings could not obscure what he described as an “unbearable price” for the deal.

Ben-Gvir’s comments, reported by Israel National News on Thursday, call attention to both the emotional stakes of the hostage chapter and the political peril now confronting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The minister framed the imminent prisoner releases—by his account encompassing “thousands of terrorists, including 250 murderers”—as a direct threat to Israeli security and to the stated objective of the war: the eradication of Hamas’s governing capacity in Gaza. “These are terrorists whom past experience shows will return to terrorism and to their craft of murdering Jews,” Ben-Gvir said, according to the report in Israel National News. He added that ministers from Otzma Yehudit “will not be able to raise our hands in favor of a deal that releases those murderous terrorists, and we will oppose it in the government.”

Ben-Gvir’s stance presents a quintessential dilemma: the visceral relief of bringing captives home versus the strategic and moral complications of a mass prisoner exchange. That tension has animated Israeli politics for decades, but it is especially acute now because of the scale and symbolism of the current agreement. The Israel National News report emphasized that Ben-Gvir’s objections are not rhetorical only; he has vowed concrete action. “I told the prime minister, and I tell you, citizens of Israel: I will not enable any fraud. If Hamas’ rule is not dismantled, or if we are told it has been dismantled while in practice it continues to exist under another guise — Otzma Yehudit will bring down the government,” Ben-Gvir said, as Israel National News relayed.

Inside the coalition, Ben-Gvir’s posture complicates the calculus for Netanyahu. The prime minister has repeatedly insisted that dismantling Hamas’s rule in Gaza remains the war’s overriding objective; Israeli public statements have affirmed that any ceasefire or phased withdrawal must be accompanied by concrete guarantees that the movement will not reconstitute its governance and terror capabilities. According to the information provided in the Israel National News report, Ben-Gvir told the Cabinet that in recent conversations with the prime minister he was given assurances that Hamas’s rule would be eradicated—a “bright red line,” in Ben-Gvir’s words—but he retains profound skepticism about implementation and verification.

That skepticism touches a raw nerve for hostage families and for political constituencies across Israel. On the one hand, families who have spent months in limbo, attending vigils and clinging to any sign of progress, view the prospect of a complete release as an incommensurable good. Israel National News’s coverage captures how ministers and parliamentarians who support the deal frame the agreement as a necessary humanitarian and political step: a way to bring closure to survivors and their loved ones while buying a window in which international actors can press for longer-term arrangements.

On the other hand, critics such as Ben-Gvir warn that mass releases will replenish Hamas’s hardened cadres, replenish its leadership, and embolden supporters—perpetuating the cycle of violence. Those fears are not abstract: former prisoner-exchange episodes remain alive in the national memory, and the security establishment must weigh the immediate human value of freeing captives against the latent risk of renewed attacks. In his remarks, Ben-Gvir invoked that calculus directly, arguing that past experience demonstrates the danger of unvetted releases and warning that the deal’s short-term gains could produce long-term losses.

For Netanyahu, reconciling these pressures will require politically delicate navigation. His government is a coalition of disparate parties that span the ideological spectrum; he must balance domestic unity, security assessments from the military and intelligence services, and international diplomatic pressures. Israel National News has reported that Ben-Gvir’s faction has already signaled its willingness to register formal opposition in the Cabinet and to vote against any government measure that it views as legitimizing Hamas in practice. That posture gives Otzma Yehudit leverage: in Israel’s parliamentary system, the withdrawal of even a small but disciplined bloc can topple a fragile coalition or force snap decisions that reshuffle political priorities.

The minister’s threat to “bring down the government” if his conditions are not met is not merely rhetorical theater. As Israel National News has noted in subsequent analysis, the mechanics of coalition governance mean that a partner’s exit can trigger cascading effects—legislative paralysis, new elections, or a hurried reshuffle that could undercut the very implementation mechanisms that negotiators are trying to construct. Ben-Gvir’s insistence that he will not be part of any government that allows Hamas’s rule to continue is therefore as much a political bargaining chip as it is a statement of principle.

Beyond the Cabinet room, Ben-Gvir’s stance has broader social reverberations. Israel National News’s reporting indicates that public sentiment on the deal is sharply divided: large segments of the population celebrate the prospect of reunions and burials, while others fear that the price to be paid will import future bloodshed. That polarization complicates the work of civil society and security planners, who must now design monitoring, demobilization and demilitarization measures for the coming phased implementation—if the deal moves forward.

Security officials, according to the report on Israel National News, have been tasked with sketching verification mechanisms that would minimize the likelihood of Hamas reconstituting itself under different structures. Those proposals could include extended monitoring of Gaza, demilitarization benchmarks, the presence of international observers, and phased prisoner releases tied to verifiable steps on the ground. But Ben-Gvir’s public skepticism suggests that he may view even those safeguards as insufficient without concrete, irreversible dismantlement.

The dilemma highlights an uncomfortable truth in conflict resolution: human compassion and strategic prudence frequently collide. Saving lives and ending suffering are core moral imperatives; ensuring sustainable security and preventing renewed atrocities are equally pressing obligations of statecraft. Ben-Gvir’s message, as was reported by Israel National News, is an insistence that any humane outcome must not be purchased at the cost of Israel’s future safety and sovereignty.

As the government continues to debate the specifics of the agreement, the final contours of the deal—and whether the Cabinet can muster the political consensus needed to implement it—remain uncertain. For now, the Israel National News report makes clear that Itamar Ben-Gvir’s voice will be a central axis in the unfolding drama: a voice of uncompromising vigilance seeking to hold the line at the intersection of justice for hostage families and security for the nation.