After more than five-and-a-half years without granting an interview to a Chareidi news outlet, former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett sat down for an extensive interview with Kikar HaShabbos commentator Yishai Cohen, where he addressed a broad range of issues, including the draft law, the future of the Chareidi parties, Qatar, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the upcoming elections.
Far from striking a conciliatory tone toward the Chareidi world, Bennett laid out what he described as an uncompromising vision. He declared that, so long as the Chareidi parties continue advocating legislation to exempt bnei yeshiva from military service, he will not include them in any coalition he leads. He also ruled out appointing Shas chairman Aryeh Deri to his Cabinet, sharply criticizing Deri’s public remarks about his grandchildren learning Torah.
“I need to give an insurance certificate to the Chareidi mother that her son will return from the army still Chareidi?” Bennett asked during the interview. “I need to provide the conditions, but I cannot guarantee that.”
Bennett also reiterated his opposition to Prime Minister Netanyahu remaining in office, vowed not to serve alongside him in a future government, called for Qatar to be officially designated an enemy state, and said that while he does not wish to see Netanyahu imprisoned, he believes the prime minister should retire from public life.
Bennett was welcomed by interviewer Yishai Cohen.
“Shalom, welcome, Yishai,” Bennett replied.
Cohen noted that Bennett had not spoken to the Chareidi media for more than five years and asked what prompted him to break that silence.
“I’m actually happy to have the opportunity now to speak directly to the Chareidi public,” Bennett responded. “Because first of all, I want to say to the Chareidi public: we are brothers. We are brothers, we are one people. I care about you, and I am certainly not your enemy. There are disagreements, and there are things that I believe will ultimately do a tremendous amount of good for this community.”
Cohen responded that they would spend much of the interview discussing the Chareidi public, but first wanted to ask about Bennett’s recent comments regarding Qatar.
“In recent days,” Cohen said, “you announced what many viewed as a campaign promise—that one of your first decisions would be to declare Qatar an enemy state. Gadi Eisenkot responded by saying, ‘I don’t suggest this be done as the result of a political gimmick, especially not by people who served in positions of influence as defense minister or prime minister and had the ability to make those decisions,’ clearly referring to you.”
Bennett dismissed the criticism.
“Listen,” he said, “anyone who still doesn’t understand that Qatar is an enemy is stuck in the October 6 mindset. Qatar is a deadly enemy, an extremely dangerous one, perhaps the most poisonous of all. Unlike Iran, where everyone knows it is an enemy, Qatar pretends to be a peaceful country.”
“But let’s look at the facts. Qatar financed the October 7 massacre. We’ve now found material proving direct Qatari funding for the massacre, for the Nukhba terrorists, for the rapes, for the murders. Qatar also financed Jabhat al-Nusra, the Revolutionary Guards, and the most severe terrorist organizations that have murdered our people. They even financed Shiite groups, despite Qatar itself being Sunni. Qatar operates Al Jazeera, the most antisemitic network in the Arab world.”
Cohen noted that Eisenkot was not disputing those facts.
“He says this shouldn’t become a political gimmick,” Cohen observed. “He argues such a decision should come after consultation with the Mossad, the National Security Council, and the Shin Bet.”
Bennett insisted that leadership demands taking decisive action.
“True leadership…” Bennett began before continuing. “And let me add something. Qatar today is also the greatest engine driving antisemitism throughout the Western world. It’s causing tremendous damage to us internationally—with genocide accusations, The Hague, everything. Do you know where that came from? The chief prosecutor in The Hague, Karim Khan, received money from Qatar. They’re killing us, they’re killing our sons, and if you refuse to identify an enemy as an enemy, you have no chance of defeating him.”
Cohen then asked why Bennett had never taken such action while serving as prime minister or defense minister, pointing out that this was essentially Eisenkot’s criticism.
“Excellent question,” Bennett replied. “Something enormous happened in between—October 7. Before October 7, everyone was trapped in the same misconception regarding Qatar. But now it’s time to wake up. Today we know Qatar was the principal financier of the massacre. What more evidence do you need before calling them an enemy?”
“And more than that,” Bennett continued, “when I see that Netanyahu’s office was infiltrated by Qatari agents who were being paid by Qatar during the war and using their influence inside the State of Israel—it was effectively legal.”
“So how do I know there aren’t hundreds more? I don’t know… retired generals, consultants… maybe there are consultants working for them right now. That’s exactly why, if you don’t define Qatar as an enemy, you have no chance of defeating them. Qatar is defeating Israel.”
“So yes,” Bennett said, “I can understand Netanyahu’s position. But I expect every leader in Israel to clearly declare that Qatar is an enemy.”
Cohen asked Bennett what his reaction had been when he first heard Eisenkot’s criticism.
“I only heard about it just now,” Bennett answered. “I’m not judging him. I’m simply stating my position: Qatar is a cruel, deadly enemy, perhaps Israel’s most dangerous enemy. Anyone who wants to lead the State of Israel must declare Qatar an enemy.”
The conversation then turned to the upcoming elections.
“With less than three months remaining until Election Day,” Cohen said, “can you tell us today who will be the candidate of the opposition bloc for prime minister?”
Bennett avoided naming a candidate.
“I can tell you one thing,” he replied. “We have to win, and I’m committed to victory. I won’t allow anything to stand in the way of that goal. My mission right now is to speak to the Israeli public—to Klal Yisroel—and explain that this election is about fixing the deepest problems facing the State of Israel.”
The discussion then shifted to the political landscape and the upcoming elections, with interviewer Yishai Cohen pressing Naftali Bennett on who would lead the anti-Netanyahu bloc should it prevail at the polls.
Cohen noted that with fewer than 80 days remaining until Election Day, voters still did not know who would be the bloc’s candidate for prime minister.
Bennett declined to answer directly.
“Look,” he said, “I can tell you this much: we have to win, and I am committed to victory. I won’t let anything get in the way of that. My mission right now is to speak to the Israeli public, to Am Yisrael, and explain that, in my view, this election is about how we fix the most serious problems facing the State of Israel.”
Cohen pressed him further, asking whether he accepted that the leader of the largest party should become the bloc’s candidate for prime minister.
“Look,” Bennett replied, “I’ll manage with Gadi. After the elections we’ll work it out. First we need to bring in 63 seats. There won’t be any obstacle to achieving that victory. Right now we need to run around the country and bring in votes, and that’s exactly what I’m doing—from Beit She’an, where I was a few days ago, to Holon, Kiryat Shmona, Tel Aviv. Today I was at the induction center. The goal is to bring in the votes so that we win, because otherwise the State of Israel is headed in a very dangerous direction.”
Cohen then turned to Bennett’s alliance with Yair Lapid, observing that many political analysts viewed the merger between their parties as unsuccessful.
“When you look back,” Cohen asked, “at your union with Yair Lapid and the creation of the Beyachad Party, you don’t have to be a political commentator to see that the experiment hasn’t worked. Twelve seats after 13 weeks is a collapse. Looking back, do you say, ‘We made a mistake’?”
Bennett rejected that characterization.
“Look,” he answered, “I see the merger with Lapid as an act of leadership, as an example of personal responsibility. What do I mean? We keep saying that the country needs unity. Everyone talks about unity. So we created unity.”
“I joined together with someone I respect מאוד. Our views are certainly not identical—they’re definitely not identical—but he was an excellent foreign minister by all accounts. He initiated the Negev Summit, he has perhaps the most professional list in the Knesset, and together we created unity.”
“You create unity with people who don’t think exactly like you, but who share fundamental principles.”
Cohen asked whether that partnership would remain intact through Election Day.
“Absolutely,” Bennett replied. “I believe in it. I really believe in it. The party is called ‘Beyachad,’ and ‘Beyachad’ means being together with people who aren’t exactly like you.”
Cohen challenged Bennett’s repeated calls for unity, pointing out what he viewed as a contradiction.
“You talk about unity,” Cohen said. “You just described your partnership with Lapid as an example of unity that the public needs. But when I look at your statements about the day after the election—who you are willing to form a government with and who you refuse to sit with—you say no to Netanyahu, no to the Chareidim, no to Ben Gvir, no to Smotrich, and certainly no to the Arab parties. So what kind of unity is that if it’s only unity within your own political camp?”
Bennett argued that he was speaking about principles rather than personalities.
“I’m talking about principles,” he responded. “What do I want? In the next term we’re going to undertake historic changes that haven’t been made in 80 years.”
“And by far the biggest change—and we’ll certainly discuss it—is bringing the Chareidi public into the State of Israel and into the workforce. We’ll talk about that.”
“For that, you need a broad Zionist majority. The country has lost its way in recent years.”
Cohen questioned that formulation.
“Are Smotrich’s voters not Zionists? Netanyahu’s voters aren’t Zionists? Ben Gvir’s voters?”
Bennett answered, “I’m saying something very, very simple. Anyone who is Zionist, who supports military service for everyone, who supports a state commission of inquiry, and who supports a constitution for Israel—they’re welcome. Let them pick up the phone.”
“As of today,” he continued, “they oppose everything I just mentioned. They’re against universal military service…”
Cohen then raised the question that has repeatedly surfaced in Israeli political circles.
“Today, can you make a firm commitment that you will not sit in a government with Prime Minister Netanyahu—certainly not under his leadership? Because people hear commentators saying, ‘Bennett fooled us once. He promised one thing and then joined Lapid. The day after the election he’ll do it again and end up sitting with Netanyahu.'”
Bennett defended the decisions he made following the previous election.
“First of all,” he said, “what I did after the last election, when I became prime minister, saved the State of Israel from three years of chaos. There was no budget, there was a massive deficit, people were being murdered across the country, and we pulled Israel out of that hole.”
He then reiterated his position on Netanyahu.
“I’ll say it as clearly as possible: Netanyahu has to go home. Not because he’s a bad person—I’m not grading his character—but because he bears ultimate responsibility for the October 7 massacre.”
“He still refuses to take responsibility for it, and that is simply unacceptable.”
“He’s leading a government that is tearing the State of Israel apart. I’m not attacking him personally. I’m simply saying: enough. Thirty years. He’s a Jew who’s approaching 80 years old. It’s okay to pass the baton. The State of Israel is not a widower.”
Yishai Cohen then posed a scenario in which neither political bloc secures a governing majority after the election.
“If the day after the election ends in a deadlock between the blocs,” Cohen asked, “are you saying that under no circumstances would you sit with Netanyahu?”
Bennett answered without hesitation.
“I’ve been very clear: absolutely not. He has to go home because he is the person responsible for that horrific massacre.”
“Every person has accomplishments from the past, mistakes they’ve made, things they did better and things they did worse. Thank you very much. At age 80, it’s perfectly acceptable to pass the baton.”
“Unlike what he claims, that the State of Israel cannot exist without him—it existed very well before him.”
Cohen then asked whether Bennett would consider relying on Arab parties such as Ra’am or Balad to establish a coalition.
“Listen,” Bennett replied, “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: we will rely only on Zionist parties—parties that support universal military service, support a state commission of inquiry, and support a constitution based on the principles of Israel’s Declaration of Independence.”
The conversation then turned to the issue at the heart of the interview—the Chareidi public and the ongoing dispute over military service.
“We’re about to discuss the draft law and what the Chareidi public views as the decrees you’re threatening to impose,” Cohen said. “You insist they aren’t decrees, and we’ll get to that shortly. But first, where did the relationship between you and the Chareidi public break down?”
Bennett rejected the premise that his dispute is with the Chareidi community itself.
“First of all,” he said, “the break isn’t with the Chareidi public. It’s with the Chareidi politicians.”
“And the turning point came after October 7.”
He paused before continuing.
“I want to answer this not from a rational perspective, but from the heart.”
“I remember October 8 and October 9. All of Am Yisrael was heading south. People were fighting. Chareidim were setting up food stations—it was incredibly moving.”
“There was also a feeling in the air that now, finally, the Chareidi public was going to enlist. Now. Because we needed every single person. We were fighting for our existence.”
“But it didn’t happen.”
“It didn’t happen because Aryeh Deri went out and told the public, ‘Don’t be swept away by a moment of weakness that you’re feeling…'”
Cohen interjected that Deri had been speaking specifically about bnei yeshiva.
“You know very well,” Bennett responded, “that not a single Chareidi politician encouraged people who are not learning Torah to enlist.”
“That was a defining moment.”
“And to this very day, listen—there is an entire generation of young people, religious and secular alike, whose lives have been shattered by three years of hundreds of days of miluim each year.”
“They desperately needed someone to come…”
Cohen then asked Bennett what type of draft law he would enact if elected.
“So I’ll tell you,” Bennett replied. “This is something I truly studied in depth—with all my experience as prime minister, defense minister, education minister, economy minister, and as a high-tech entrepreneur.”
“I’m presenting my own plan because I don’t believe in any other plan, and I believe this one will actually work.”
“We don’t need police.”
“We don’t need tanks rolling into Bnei Brak.”
“We don’t need arrests.”
“We don’t need coercion.”
“What will happen is very simple: whoever doesn’t enlist won’t receive a single shekel from the state. Whoever doesn’t work won’t receive a single shekel from the state.”
“But here’s the most important point, the one nobody talks about, and one of the biggest conclusions I reached over the last two years: the education system.”
“Anyone who doesn’t attend the State Chareidi school system won’t receive a single shekel.”
Bennett acknowledged that his views on Chareidi education have changed.
“In the past I believed the state shouldn’t interfere at all in Chareidi education.”
“I changed my position.”
“We’ve become two separate countries because we no longer share a common story.”
“In the end, we all live in the State of Israel, which is both a Jewish and democratic state.”
“As far as I’m concerned, anyone who doesn’t teach the importance of military service, the importance of the State of Israel, and of course mathematics, English, and the importance of democracy, shouldn’t receive state funding.”
Cohen noted that Bennett’s current position appears to contradict statements he made while serving as education minister.
Bennett responded that he, too, had once accepted what he now believes was a mistaken assumption.
“The entire country lived under the same misconception,” he said. “That’s a misconception that I myself woke up from.”
“What was that misconception?”
“The misconception was that the Chareidi public could continue growing larger and larger without democratic values, without Zionism, without military service, without working, without mathematics, without English—and somehow everything would work out.”
“That misconception threatens the very existence of the State of Israel.”
“And it also threatens the Chareidi public itself.”
Yishai Cohen noted that when Bennett served as education minister, the Chareidi parties generally received what they requested, while representatives of the State Chareidi school system complained that Bennett would not even meet with them.
Bennett acknowledged that his thinking has changed dramatically.
“Because in that government,” he said, “all of us were living under the same misconception. It was based on Netanyahu’s coalition agreement with the Chareidim when Porush was deputy minister.”
“You’re right. I’m not arguing with you. In fact, I agree with you—we all woke up from that misconception, myself included.”
“Today I understand that when 15% of Israel’s citizens are Chareidim, and roughly one-third of Jewish first-grade students are Chareidim, if we don’t wake up now, this incredible miracle called the State of Israel will collapse.”
“I’ll go even further,” Bennett continued. “In my opinion, if we don’t solve this problem, the State of Israel has no future.”
He then turned directly to the Chareidi public.
“And through you I’d like to speak to the Chareidi community. I have tremendous love for the Chareidi public, but I also have to say something.”
Cohen responded that Bennett would likely have difficulty convincing Chareidi listeners.
“I’m not here to convince anyone,” Bennett answered. “I’m here to tell the truth.”
“And the truth is that the cruelest thing you can do to the Chareidi public is preserve the current situation.”
“The current situation is artificial. It’s manufactured.”
“It has no foundation in Judaism.”
“It has no precedent.”
“In Europe, in North Africa, in Iraq—everybody worked.”
Cohen then challenged Bennett on how he intended to implement such sweeping changes.
“For the sake of discussion,” Cohen said, “let’s assume we agree with everything you’ve just said—we don’t, but let’s assume we do. How do you actually carry it out? Through economic sanctions?”
Bennett objected to the characterization.
“So let me explain exactly,” he replied. “First of all, these aren’t sanctions. They’re the end of extraordinary benefits.”
“Take daycare subsidies, for example. Almost all of that funding went to the Chareidi community even when the father wasn’t working.”
Cohen pointed out that such subsidies no longer exist.
“At the moment they don’t,” Bennett acknowledged. “And that’s exactly why we’re already seeing higher enlistment numbers.”
“Because of the sanctions we’re beginning to see an increase in enlistment.”
“That’s simply what’s happening.”
He insisted he was not trying to force anyone into military service.
“I’m not cornering the Chareidi public, and I’m certainly not advocating prison or coercion.”
“I’m saying something very simple: in every available framework, if you don’t enlist, you don’t receive state funding.”
“But if you do enlist, we’ll find you a framework that fits your needs.”
“For example, one idea I strongly believe in—and I don’t understand why it hasn’t been adopted—is establishing Chareidi yeshivos hesder along the Jordan Valley and the Egyptian border.”
Bennett then emphasized what he viewed as the central principle behind his proposal.
“I want to explain this because it’s extremely important.”
“These are not decrees.”
“The Chareidi public will have legitimate options.”
“I’m certainly not asking anyone to remove his yarmulke or compromise his religious observance.”
“The same applies to education.”
“There will be State Chareidi schools where students learn Gemara, but they will also study mathematics, English, Zionism, and democracy.”
Cohen returned to the issue of the draft law itself.
“Gadi Eisenkot says that 30% of each draft class should be permitted to continue learning Torah. Avigdor Lieberman says zero exemptions should be granted and that it’s his first condition for joining any government. Where do you fall on that spectrum?”
“I’m on my own spectrum,” Bennett answered.
“I’ve already explained my principles.”
“There will be no exemptions.”
“Not because of percentages or quotas.”
He then criticized Eisenkot’s proposal.
“Gadi spoke about 30%, about drafting 4,500 from 12,000.”
“I think that’s a terrible mistake.”
“I’ll tell you why.”
“Gafni and Deri will simply fool the next politician just as they’ve fooled others before, and once again nothing will happen.”
“They’ve had four years in power.”
“They didn’t do anything.”
“They could have enlisted people.”
“I never heard a single Chareidi politician stand up and say, ‘Anyone who isn’t learning Torah should enlist.'”
The interviewer then cited comments made by Yair Golan, who argued that drafting the Chareidi public would necessarily be a gradual process because the army cannot absorb thousands of Chareidim overnight while maintaining separate religious accommodations.
“Perhaps,” Cohen suggested, “someone who served as deputy chief of staff understands this issue better than anyone else.”
Bennett rejected the argument outright.
“With all due respect to someone who served as deputy chief of staff,” he replied, “you’re speaking to someone who spent 25 years in the army.”
“You’re speaking to someone who served as defense minister, education minister, and prime minister.”
“Yishai, I have a little experience.”
“And my experience tells me that phrases like ‘it’s a process’ are simply another way of saying, ‘We’re not going to do anything.'”
Yishai Cohen pressed Bennett on whether the IDF is truly interested in drafting thousands of Chareidim each year, noting that Yair Golan had argued the military is not equipped to absorb such large numbers.
“The army wants thousands of Chareidim in every draft cycle?” Cohen asked. “Yair Golan says the answer is no.”
Bennett strongly disagreed.
“The army absolutely wants thousands of combat soldiers with Rifleman 05 qualifications,” he said. “Not people who are placed into all kinds of marginal roles. The Chashmonaim Brigade is a good example. Absolutely.”
“Of course it would be done according to the army’s needs,” he continued. “But right now the IDF doesn’t need 12,000 additional soldiers—it needs 20,000.”
“That’s why members of my own family who are in their 30s have their lives on hold. If they’re not risking their lives on the battlefield, they’re preparing to go back.”
Cohen then asked Bennett whether he would personally guarantee that Chareidi soldiers would be able to maintain their religious way of life during military service.
“As prime minister or defense minister,” Cohen said, “would you commit that if Chareidim enlist, they will remain Chareidi? That they enter as Chareidim and leave as Chareidim?”
Bennett responded that the government could provide an appropriate environment, but could not make such guarantees.
“I’ll say that we will create the conditions necessary for Chareidim to preserve their religious commitment.”
“But ultimately, responsibility for maintaining a person’s faith doesn’t rest with me. That’s the responsibility of parents…”
Cohen interrupted.
“But the army has to provide the proper environment.”
“That’s exactly why I spoke about yeshivos hesder in the Jordan Valley,” Bennett replied. “I was there just last week.”
“But to guarantee that every single person will leave the army still Chareidi? I can’t even guarantee that my own son will come home alive.”
“I can’t guarantee that my own son will come home alive, so how can I promise something like that?”
“What I can promise is that we’ll provide the proper conditions.”
At that point Bennett became visibly emotional.
“Wait a second,” he said. “You asked the question, and I’ll tell you why it angers me.”
“It angers me.”
“Over the past few years I’ve met people who lost arms, legs, suffered severe brain injuries—people whose entire lives have been changed forever.”
“And I’m supposed to give an insurance certificate to the Chareidi mother that her son…”
“In the end, parents also bear responsibility.”
“I’ll provide the conditions necessary for her son to remain Chareidi.”
“If that mother doesn’t know how to educate her son in Judaism, am I supposed to provide that guarantee?”
Cohen then turned to Bennett’s relationship with the Chareidi political leadership.
“When was the last time you spoke with Aryeh Deri, Moshe Gafni, Goldknopf, Friedman, Babchik—anyone from that group?”
“It’s been a long time,” Bennett answered.
“I want to say something about Deri.”
“Deri sits in the Security Cabinet.”
“He’s sitting in the cabinet that sends our sons—you know what? My own son, who’s currently in Lebanon—to the battlefield.”
“And then he goes out publicly and boasts that his grandchildren are draft evaders.”
“I’m asking you honestly: is that moral?”
Bennett said the events of the war had profoundly shaped his views.
“I want to tell you something.”
“Since October 7 I’ve paid more than 500 nichum aveilim visits throughout the country.”
“Five hundred families.”
“I attended funerals. I met families whose worlds were destroyed.”
“The fact that he can say something like that… you know what? I don’t care about all the explanations.”
“It’s simply not Jewish.”
“Where was the Jewish heart when he said those words?”
“To me, it demonstrates a complete disconnect.”
“He’s disconnected.”
“He’s not my partner.”
“The Chareidi public I love…”
Cohen then asked directly whether Deri would be disqualified from serving in any government Bennett heads.
“From your perspective,” he asked, “is Aryeh Deri barred from serving in any government that you lead or are a senior member of?”
“Absolutely,” Bennett answered.
“The man boasts that his grandchildren are draft evaders.”
“Obviously someone like that won’t sit in my Security Cabinet.”
Cohen followed up.
“So no Chareidim would serve in your Cabinet?”
Bennett clarified that his objection was directed at those who support exemptions.
“There won’t be anyone in my Cabinet who supports draft evasion.”
“Does it seem reasonable to you that someone who proudly says members of his own family are draft evaders should then send my sons into battle?”
“Does that sound normal to you?”
“It’s a disgrace.”
The interviewer then asked whether Bennett was effectively shutting the door on cooperation with the Chareidi parties.
“If Agudas Yisrael tells you they’re no longer committed to Netanyahu, or Degel HaTorah says it’s looking toward you and Gadi Eisenkot,” Cohen said, “are you telling them the door is closed because they support exemptions for bnei yeshiva?”
“Absolutely,” Bennett replied.
“You’re right.”
“So the door is closed?”
“The door is closed to anyone who supports draft evasion.”
“And I’ll explain why.”
“For anyone who supports draft evasion, the door is closed—and locked.”
Cohen clarified what Bennett meant by “draft evasion.”
“By draft evasion, you mean anyone who supports legislation regulating the status of bnei yeshiva and exempting them from military service?”
“Yes, yes, yes,” Bennett responded. “Exactly.”
“That’s precisely what the draft exemption law is.”
“In my opinion, the greatest threat facing the future of the Jewish state is that 15% of Israeli society already lives in a separate, disconnected Chareidi state.”
“So there’s no point in forming a government that won’t solve this existential Chareidi issue.”
“If we don’t deal with it now, we’ll never solve it.”
Cohen summarized Bennett’s position.
“So if Babchik, Goldknopf, Gafni and the other leaders of United Torah Judaism tell you they’re no longer committed to Netanyahu and are looking toward you as a candidate for prime minister, you’re telling them they have no partner because you insist on universal military service?”
Bennett answered unequivocally.
“I’m saying this as clearly as I possibly can.”
“All of these stories are just stories told by people who don’t want to draft anyone.”
“They had four years to enlist people.”
“They didn’t enlist anyone.”
“The only reason enlistment has increased now is because the High Court stopped the funding.”
“And now people are enlisting.”
“My answer is yes—the door is open to anyone who wants to be a partner in a State of Israel that has universal military service.”
The interview concluded with a question unrelated to the Chareidi community.
Cohen asked Bennett whether, if he were to win the election and Netanyahu retired from politics, he would support granting the prime minister a pardon.
“I absolutely do not want to see Benjamin Netanyahu wearing an orange prison uniform,” Bennett replied.
“For a great many Israelis, he long ago became more than just a prime minister.”
“He became a symbol.”
“And Heaven forbid that symbol should be crushed.”
“I have nothing against him personally.”
“I don’t want to see him in prison.”
“Let him go home, live his life, do whatever he wants, and that’s perfectly fine with me.”
{Matzav.com}
