When one of Israel’s most outspoken American supporters says two ministers are damaging the country’s standing, the government should listen. Bill Ackman’s Sunday warning about Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich deserves attention because it comes from someone who wants Israel to succeed, has defended it publicly, and has praised Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Jewish-American billionaire investor made clear in his post on X/Twitter that Israelis must decide who becomes their prime minister. But from his vantage point in America, the national security minister and finance minister, respectively, have caused Israel “enormous reputational damage,” their statements and actions presented internationally as expressing the will of all Israelis.
A government without them, Ackman argued, would signal a new beginning, help restore credibility, improve relations with Democrats and Republicans, and increase the prospects of expanding the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states.
His warning should not be dismissed as another intervention by someone hostile to the government. Ackman has praised Netanyahu’s leadership since October 7 while identifying the two ministers as a serious liability. His criticism cannot credibly be reduced to opposition to Netanyahu or indifference to Israel’s security.
That makes it politically uncomfortable and valuable. It asks government supporters to consider whether loyalty to particular coalition partners serves the country they intend to defend.
US Ambassador Mike Huckabee offers another example. A longstanding supporter of Israel appointed by President Donald Trump, Huckabee told The Jerusalem Post in September: “I wish that they understood the damage they’re doing to the country they claim to love because it is not helpful.”
He was referring to violence against Palestinians in the West Bank, which he warned was damaging Israel’s reputation, including among Republicans. He also argued that condemning Palestinian violence while refusing to condemn Israeli violence would be hypocritical. His support for Israel did not prevent him from demanding accountability.
There is a moral obligation here, before any question of reputation. Violence and humiliating treatment deserve scrutiny because of the harm they inflict, regardless of the headlines they generate. Israel should demand standards of its representatives that it can defend openly before its citizens and its allies.
Recognizing that friendship doesn’t require silence when Israelis harm Israel’s interests.
These interventions differ in scope. Huckabee’s criticism of specific conduct is not an endorsement of Ackman’s proposed coalition arrangement. What connects them is the recognition that friendship does not require silence when Israelis damage Israel’s interests.
Jerusalem should be capable of hearing that distinction. Criticism must be judged on its merits, whoever delivers it. But when people who regularly defend this country describe the difficulties created by its ministers, their warnings deserve attention. They understand Israel’s arguments abroad because they have made those arguments themselves.
Nor can every damaging image be explained away as hostile coverage. Ministers hold public authority. Their words carry weight because of their offices, and the government cannot expect foreign audiences to treat them as private citizens whenever their conduct becomes embarrassing.
There are limits to Ackman’s prescription. Removing two ministers would not automatically restore Israel’s standing, resolve disagreements over the Palestinians, or secure additional normalization agreements.
Those outcomes require policy, diplomacy, and decisions by other governments. Changing ministers alone would not substitute for responsible policy and leadership.
The people entrusted with power nevertheless help define a government’s priorities and credibility. A prime minister who promises responsible leadership abroad must exercise it within his cabinet.
Coalition calculations cannot be the only measure of whether a partnership serves the national interest. That responsibility belongs to whoever forms the next government and chooses its senior ministers.
The test for any coalition should be whether it can protect the country while governing responsibly at home and maintaining credibility abroad. That requires leaders willing to confront damaging conduct among their allies, rather than dismiss every warning as disloyalty or leave accountability to those watching Israel from overseas.
Israel needs leadership that puts security, responsible government, and national cohesion first. Israelis alone will choose that leadership. They should do so with an honest accounting of the costs of political partnerships, including those identified by friends who remain committed to the country.
Listening to those friends is an act of responsibility. Their support should give their warnings weight, not excuse ignoring them.
Follow us on GoogleSource: The Jerusalem Post · JPOST EDITORIAL
At a glance
- Topic
- World
- Country
- 🇮🇱 IL
- Publisher language
- EN
- Added to Allnira