In the wake of Naftali Bennett’s recent interview, in which he claimed credit for Israel’s strike on Iran and blamed MK Idit Silman for the failure to eliminate Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, two of Bennett’s former allies—Silman and Amichai Shikli—fired back with strongly worded public statements, accusing him of shameless self-aggrandizement and distortion of history.
Environmental Protection Minister Idit Silman began her blistering response by noting the timing of the interview. “It’s amazing that Bennett chose to speak out during Parshas Korach,” she wrote. “It suits him perfectly—his style, his political path. No remorse, no apology to the voters he betrayed—just blind arrogance and a burning envy of Netanyahu’s historic achievements. Unlike him, I apologized for my role in that fraudulent coalition. But he? He carries on as if nothing happened. Not a single word of regret to the people he deceived.”
Silman continued: “What value do the words of a man hold when the entire nation and the whole world saw that he keeps no commitments, not even to his own signature? The sad truth is plain: a man who has no integrity, who outright says he won’t even promise things to his own children. When there’s no truth, there are no limits, no values, no red lines.”
She accused Bennett of rewriting the facts: “None of what he said is true. This is the same man who subordinated Israel to the Shura Council, funneled billions to the Muslim Brotherhood—funds that were later found to have reached Hamas-affiliated organizations. This is the man who built a government on the votes of Ra’am, a party that on Israel’s most vulnerable day accused it of war crimes. And he has the audacity to claim he would have taken out Sinwar? That government bent over backwards to appease the Muslim Brotherhood. It nearly collapsed over tree-planting in the Negev—so now he wants us to believe it would have ordered a strike in Gaza or Iran?”
Silman then pointed out the flaw in Bennett’s narrative: “Let’s not forget: the government remained in power for nine months after I resigned. Why didn’t it act then? His talk of ‘unity’ is a pathetic mask. A man who declares he will boycott a Netanyahu-led government, but happily sits with terror supporters, shows who he really is. His attempt to grab credit for the Iran strike is beyond absurd. Like a fly on an elephant’s back shouting, ‘We won!’ This is a man who couldn’t even manage his own office. Not a week went by without infighting and accusations.”
She concluded: “It was an honor for me to bring down the left-wing-Arab coalition and save the State of Israel from the dangerous hands that were steering it toward disaster. Yes, the polls always showed him as strong. And yet we all know how that ended.”
Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Shikli followed up with a fact-based rebuttal titled “A Quick Fact Check for Mr. Bennett.”
“A. The Hamas attack was planned during the tenure of the ‘government of change.’ While it’s possible that the exact timing was influenced by protests or mass refusal to serve, the plan would have been executed regardless—months before or after.
B. During that government’s term, several dangerous precedents were set:

1. Increasing the quota of Gaza work permits to 20,000. Then-Minister of Regional Cooperation Issawi Frej said at the time that ‘economic prosperity promotes security stability.’
2. For the first time, an Israeli government entirely refrained from action against Hamas. The Bennett-Lapid administration only targeted Islamic Jihad, under the mistaken belief that Hamas was interested in ‘stability and economic growth.’
3. Bennett served as foreign minister in the Lapid-led transitional government. When Hezbollah launched three drones toward the Karish gas rig just days after he took office, Lapid panicked and launched hasty negotiations to redraw the maritime border with Lebanon, ultimately conceding key Israeli assets. Signing that deal days before Israel’s elections portrayed Israel as weak and fearful and severely damaged our deterrence.

C. The ‘government of change’ had a year and a half to carry out targeted assassinations of Hamas leadership. Blaming Silman’s resignation as the reason they didn’t is a pitiful excuse.
D. Had the Hamas massacre occurred under Bennett and Lapid:

1. It’s doubtful a large-scale ground operation would have been launched—certainly not in Rafah—due to the Biden administration’s staunch opposition.
2. Bennett and Lapid would have insisted on receiving prior American approval for any strike on Hezbollah leadership, which likely would have meant the operation never materialized.
3. As for Iran, Bennett himself recently said that his approach to neutralizing the Iranian threat was not through military strikes on nuclear facilities, but rather through ‘weakening the regime—not necessarily kinetic (military) action…’”

Shikli concluded his statement by saying, “The attempt to rewrite history and claim victory where there was failure is not only misleading. It is dangerous.”
{Matzav.com Israel}