Trump's deal doesn't bind us: Israeli Minister rejects US-Iran peace agreement
Itamar Ben-Gvir rejected a reported US-backed agreement and said Israel would make its own security decisions. The statement raises pressure on Benjamin Netanyahu and sharpens the dispute over Hezbollah, Lebanon and outside mediation.
Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir on Monday mounted a fierce attack on a reported US-brokered agreement with Iran, declaring that Israel would not be bound by any arrangement announced by President Donald Trump and insisting that the country's security decisions would be made in Jerusalem, not Washington.
The sharp response came shortly after Trump announced that a deal with Iran had been completed, including the lifting of a US naval blockade and the reopening of the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz.
"Trump's agreement does not bind us. Israel is not subject to the United States, and we are an independent and sovereign nation," Ben-Gvir wrote on X.
"We love the USA and are grateful to President Trump. And yet, the State of Israel is not a banana republic."
ISRAEL'S SECURITY COMES FIRST
In a lengthy statement, the far-right minister argued that Israel's first responsibility was to its citizens, soldiers and national security interests.
"Our duty is to the citizens of Israel, to the soldiers of the IDF, and to the Jewish people, and our historical duty to the persecuted and murdered Jews over thousands of years of exile, to provide security to Jews in the Land of Israel," he said.
Ben-Gvir warned against yielding to international pressure, arguing that previous diplomatic arrangements had weakened Israel's security position.
"Every time we succumbed to international pressure at the expense of Israel's security, we paid a blood price with interest," he said, pointing to the Oslo Accords, the 2006 Lebanon agreement and past periods of restraint in Gaza.
He also revealed that he had repeatedly conveyed his views to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
"I say these things to the Prime Minister all the time, and repeat them in closed rooms at every important historical juncture. In historical moments, a historical decision must be made," he said.
'WE ARE NOT PARTNERS TO THIS AGREEMENT'
Ben-Gvir made it clear that he opposed any agreement that, in his view, failed to guarantee Israel's security.
"My position is clear: We are not partners to this agreement that does not ensure our security, and it does not bind us in any way," he said.
The minister insisted that Israel should not settle for anything short of Hezbollah's dismantling and should retain control of territory captured during military operations.
"We must not compromise on anything less than the dismantling of Hezbollah, we must not withdraw from any territory that our fighters have captured and cleared of terror infrastructure, and we must not return to a situation where thousands of terrorists sit on the fences of northern settlements," he said.
Ben-Gvir also demanded a forceful military response to attacks originating from Lebanon.
"Every launch of a drone, UAV, or missile toward Israel from Lebanon will lead to an Israeli strike in Dahiya," he said.
"That was the deterrence balance just a few months ago, and we must not give it up in any way."
GANTZ JOINS CRITICISM
The criticism was not limited to Israel's governing coalition.
Former Defence Minister Benny Gantz, a leading opposition figure, also voiced strong reservations about the reported diplomatic track, warning against any arrangement that could restrict Israel's military freedom of action.
"Under no circumstances is it permissible to agree to restrict Israel's freedom of action in Lebanon or to a withdrawal that endangers the residents of the north," Gantz wrote on X.
He described the emerging agreement with Iran as a "strategic failure" that could leave Israel facing prolonged diplomatic, military and legal challenges.
"The emerging agreement with Iran appears to be a strategic failure that will require Israel to engage in diplomatic, military, and legal struggles in the coming years, which only a broad Zionist government can lead," he said.
TRUMP ANNOUNCES DEAL WITH IRAN
The political backlash in Israel followed Trump's announcement that an agreement with Iran had been finalised.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump declared: "The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all!"
He also announced the removal of the US naval blockade and authorised the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most important energy shipping routes.
"I hereby fully authorise the toll-free opening of the Strait of Hormuz and, simultaneously herewith, authorise the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade. Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!" Trump wrote.
The announcement was made hours before a UFC event scheduled at the White House to mark the US President's 80th birthday.
Shortly before Trump's post, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also announced that an agreement between the United States and Iran had been reached.
The reported deal has already exposed divisions within Israel's political spectrum, with both coalition and opposition figures warning that any agreement perceived to limit Israel's ability to act against regional threats could face significant resistance in Jerusalem.
Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir on Monday mounted a fierce attack on a reported US-brokered agreement with Iran, declaring that Israel would not be bound by any arrangement announced by President Donald Trump and insisting that the country's security decisions would be made in Jerusalem, not Washington.
The sharp response came shortly after Trump announced that a deal with Iran had been completed, including the lifting of a US naval blockade and the reopening of the strategically vital Strait of Hormuz.
"Trump's agreement does not bind us. Israel is not subject to the United States, and we are an independent and sovereign nation," Ben-Gvir wrote on X.
"We love the USA and are grateful to President Trump. And yet, the State of Israel is not a banana republic."
ISRAEL'S SECURITY COMES FIRST
In a lengthy statement, the far-right minister argued that Israel's first responsibility was to its citizens, soldiers and national security interests.
"Our duty is to the citizens of Israel, to the soldiers of the IDF, and to the Jewish people, and our historical duty to the persecuted and murdered Jews over thousands of years of exile, to provide security to Jews in the Land of Israel," he said.
Ben-Gvir warned against yielding to international pressure, arguing that previous diplomatic arrangements had weakened Israel's security position.
"Every time we succumbed to international pressure at the expense of Israel's security, we paid a blood price with interest," he said, pointing to the Oslo Accords, the 2006 Lebanon agreement and past periods of restraint in Gaza.
He also revealed that he had repeatedly conveyed his views to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
"I say these things to the Prime Minister all the time, and repeat them in closed rooms at every important historical juncture. In historical moments, a historical decision must be made," he said.
'WE ARE NOT PARTNERS TO THIS AGREEMENT'
Ben-Gvir made it clear that he opposed any agreement that, in his view, failed to guarantee Israel's security.
"My position is clear: We are not partners to this agreement that does not ensure our security, and it does not bind us in any way," he said.
The minister insisted that Israel should not settle for anything short of Hezbollah's dismantling and should retain control of territory captured during military operations.
"We must not compromise on anything less than the dismantling of Hezbollah, we must not withdraw from any territory that our fighters have captured and cleared of terror infrastructure, and we must not return to a situation where thousands of terrorists sit on the fences of northern settlements," he said.
Ben-Gvir also demanded a forceful military response to attacks originating from Lebanon.
"Every launch of a drone, UAV, or missile toward Israel from Lebanon will lead to an Israeli strike in Dahiya," he said.
"That was the deterrence balance just a few months ago, and we must not give it up in any way."
GANTZ JOINS CRITICISM
The criticism was not limited to Israel's governing coalition.
Former Defence Minister Benny Gantz, a leading opposition figure, also voiced strong reservations about the reported diplomatic track, warning against any arrangement that could restrict Israel's military freedom of action.
"Under no circumstances is it permissible to agree to restrict Israel's freedom of action in Lebanon or to a withdrawal that endangers the residents of the north," Gantz wrote on X.
He described the emerging agreement with Iran as a "strategic failure" that could leave Israel facing prolonged diplomatic, military and legal challenges.
"The emerging agreement with Iran appears to be a strategic failure that will require Israel to engage in diplomatic, military, and legal struggles in the coming years, which only a broad Zionist government can lead," he said.
TRUMP ANNOUNCES DEAL WITH IRAN
The political backlash in Israel followed Trump's announcement that an agreement with Iran had been finalised.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump declared: "The Deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran is now complete. Congratulations to all!"
He also announced the removal of the US naval blockade and authorised the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most important energy shipping routes.
"I hereby fully authorise the toll-free opening of the Strait of Hormuz and, simultaneously herewith, authorise the immediate removal of the United States Naval blockade. Ships of the World, start your engines. Let the oil flow!" Trump wrote.
The announcement was made hours before a UFC event scheduled at the White House to mark the US President's 80th birthday.
Shortly before Trump's post, Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also announced that an agreement between the United States and Iran had been reached.
The reported deal has already exposed divisions within Israel's political spectrum, with both coalition and opposition figures warning that any agreement perceived to limit Israel's ability to act against regional threats could face significant resistance in Jerusalem.
