A highly anticipated "special statement" from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has drawn fierce backlash, with critics accusing him of political manipulation and delaying the captive deal for strategic gain. The speech, announced in advance and delivered Saturday night, left families of the kidnapped in distress and the public in suspense, only to contain vague rhetoric and recycled slogans about “complete victory.”

Described by commentators as hollow and misleading, Netanyahu’s address aimed to reassert control over the national agenda, especially as dissent grows within his traditional support base. In a fiery critique, Israeli journalist and Maariv commentator Ben Caspit called the statement an effort to "reheat the cold noodles" of old slogans while avoiding concrete actions.

In the speech, Netanyahu declared, "I will not surrender to the murderers who committed the most terrible massacre of the Jewish people since the Holocaust, because such a surrender would endanger the security of the state and endanger you." But Caspit quickly pointed out what he viewed as hypocrisy, recalling that Netanyahu himself had previously approved the release of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and hundreds of other Palestinian detainees in earlier deals.

Captive families lose faith in government promises

Among the most vocal critics are members of the Tikva Forum, families of the captives, who have increasingly expressed disillusionment with the government’s handling of the crisis, as per the piece. The emotional toll was intensified by Netanyahu’s vague promises and perceived delay tactics, as per the author.

Caspit argues that Netanyahu has “sacrificed the hostages in cold blood” to maintain the cohesion of his coalition, particularly by avoiding a second phase of the captive deal due to pressure from far-right ministers like Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir.

Sources close to the negotiations suggest that Netanyahu is stalling the implementation of the second phase of a deal he himself supported, a phase that could lead to the return of more captives. Israeli observers say this is being done to preserve the current government, which depends on the support of extremist factions opposing further concessions.

Related News

'Israel’s' economy shrinks 3.5% amid war on Iran and Gaza costs

WSJ: Netanyahu wants to occupy Gaza, it won't be as easy as he thinks

At the same time, Netanyahu now cites Hamas demands for “international guarantees” as an obstacle. The author points out that he has historically dismissed such guarantees with contempt and that their current invocation serves only to justify inaction.

Eli Feldstein case sparks internal scandal

Parallel to the captive crisis, a new controversy has erupted over Eli Feldstein, a former advisor closely linked to Netanyahu. In a recent interview, Netanyahu’s spokesperson, Omer Dostry, claimed Feldstein had been removed from the Prime Minister’s Office months prior to his arrest, implying that he acted independently.

However, a statement from Feldstein’s lawyers, Oded Saburai and Sion Hausman, contradicts this. They assert that Feldstein continued working closely with Netanyahu until his arrest, citing thousands of text messages and direct orders from senior officials, including Netanyahu himself. The case has raised questions about internal accountability and whether Feldstein is being used as a scapegoat to shield more powerful figures, as per the piece.

The legal team’s response suggests that Feldstein was fully embedded in Netanyahu’s bureau and acted under instruction. “Everything he did was under the authority and permission of Netanyahu himself,” the lawyers stated, describing their client as a pawn in a wider political game.

In Caspit's view, this development has fueled further scrutiny of Netanyahu’s leadership style and decision-making during crises, casting a shadow over his credibility and further complicating his standing amid the ongoing Netanyahu captive crisis.

Exposing Netanyahu’s shifting stances and scapegoating

On the Iranian front, the situation mirrors the captive crisis, though without captives. According to Caspit, Netanyahu returned from Washington having endured what he calls a "cold shower," as the Americans brought him into direct negotiations with Iran. All signs, Caspit notes, point away from a Libya-style agreement, suggesting instead that the US is prepared to make significant concessions to Tehran.

Caspit contrasts this with Netanyahu’s previous outrage when opposition leaders Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid were in power. Back then, Netanyahu fiercely criticized them for allowing similar diplomatic developments. “It turns out that when he is in power – it is easier to let this happen,” Caspit writes, underscoring the shift in Netanyahu’s stance when politically convenient.

Political calculations undermine crisis management

Caspit argues that Netanyahu’s handling of both the captive crisis and the Feldstein affair reflects a broader pattern: prioritizing political survival over "national interest". While a temporary agreement was reached to de-escalate the war on the northern front, where the "enemy posed a greater military threat than Hamas", no such urgency has been shown regarding the captives, as per the piece.

Despite knowing that international guarantees won’t prevent future military actions against Hamas, Netanyahu, as per the piece, appears unwilling to proceed with their release, instead leveraging the situation for political messaging.

"The more time passes, the clearer the picture of what happened there becomes. Feldstein is the scapegoat who was thrown off the cliff. Most of the time he was a foolish agent of the bureau's senior officials, and when the plot was exposed - they sacrificed him. In my opinion, Feldstein is less in tune with this sacrifice now," Caspit concluded.