Minister of Settlement and National Missions Orit Strook, who also serves as an observer at the security cabinet, on Thursday commented on the decision of her faction, Religious Zionism, to support the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon, even though it is clearly a bad agreement. Speaking at the graduation ceremony at the Midrashat Nishmat program for women halachic advisers, Strook said, “In order to exercise national responsibility, one must get down to the details and the details of the details.”
The minister claimed that this was a tactical ceasefire, intended to serve strategic political and security goals that cannot be detailed at this time. “It is clear that initially we would not have stopped the fighting now, nor would we sign an agreement – not with a terrorist organization whose entire existence is aimed at destroying us – nor with a country that is under the auspices of that terrorist organization,” said Strook.
Strook claimed that they agreed to this tactical ceasefire, provided that the following leading principles were accepted – in principle and in practice: enforcement, preservation of war achievements, safe return of residents, no more state of quiet will be met with quiet and, of course, zero achievements for Hezbollah.
“As a minister and as a participant in the cabinet, I am privileged to experience the very strong and difficult taking of responsibility for the future of the people of Israel,” the minister said, noting: “We had to make a very difficult decision this week, and for that, we had to take responsibility for the details and the details of the details, and we will need to do more in the future.”
Her party chairman, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, referred to the ceasefire agreement with Lebanon as “the greatest test of the Israeli government, perhaps one of the greatest tests of Israeli governments in general. If we pass it, we will secure Israel’s security forever. I voted in favor because I believe we will pass it. My demands to enshrine the necessary conditions for this in the body of the decision were accepted, and I pledge to continue to be there, on guard.”
But the reality of that cabinet debate was not nearly as idyllic as Smotrich would have us believe. According to News13, hours before the ceasefire agreement with Lebanon was approved, a heated discussion took place in the political-security cabinet, during which the participants raised their voices.
Some expressed resentment that the agreement was accepted as a fait accompli – and Minister Smotrich was furious about this conduct, saying that he “demands that at every stage of the agreement, the cabinet approve the progress anew.” At this point, PM Netanyahu left the room, and Defense Minister Israel Katz replied to Smotrich: “There is no such thing. The cabinet meets regularly and receives updates. In the end, there is a defense minister and a prime minister – and they manage it.”
Smotrich replied: “The cabinet is not a rubber stamp.”
The Religious Zionists sought, among other things, to amend several clauses in the side document and the cabinet decision, so that, for example, any actual withdrawal of IDF soldiers from southern Lebanon would require additional approval by cabinet ministers. They also demanded an automatic enforcement policy by the IDF of Hezbollah violations, which does not allow for discretion on the part of field commanders. In addition, they raised their demand from the previous discussion on the demolition of homes used for terrorist activity and requested that any violation of the agreement be met with an attack on Lebanese infrastructure.
The party also wanted a clause to be added to the agreement with the Americans, according to which the US understands that Israel is not obligated to give up territories along its northern border, only to discuss the matter.
Minister Strook, who only recently joined the cabinet as an observer, wrote this week in the Religious Zionist Center WhatsApp group about why she and her colleagues supported the ceasefire agreement, explaining that it was the party ministers’ insistence that improved and introduced important reservations to the side document and the mechanisms for enforcing the agreement:
“We ended the discussion in the cabinet, and as we agreed in advance – Bezalel voted in favor (I don’t have the right to vote), due to our success in incorporating our demands into the decision,” Strook posted.
