Is Naftali Bennett “Untrustworthy”?

Bennett did break a campaign promise about coalition partners. But once in office, he kept his core security and national policies intact rather than trading them away. Slapping the label “untrustworthy” on anything he proposes is an easy talking point, but it doesn’t match the record. He compromised on coalition structure, not on values or policy.

——-

Last week, Naftali Bennett unveiled a proposal to provide meaningful subsidies and benefits to reserve soldiers, creating real incentives for enlistment and continued service. His detractors responded in two ways. One group asked where the money would come from. Bennett answered that directly, laying out funding sources and budget priorities. The other response skipped the policy entirely: “You can’t trust him. He broke his promises last time. He’ll say whatever he needs to say to get elected.” This line is going to follow Bennett throughout the campaign, attached to almost anything he proposes. So let’s investigate if it actually holds up.

The Real Question

Trust matters. And there’s no point sugar-coating it: Bennett did overpromise in his previous campaign about which parties he would or wouldn’t sit with. He set expectations that he later reversed, and many voters were understandably frustrated. It’s also true that not every coalition partner in that government was one his base would have chosen, and not every policy was ideal from a right-leaning perspective. Bennett himself has acknowledged that. But the real question is: once in office, did he abandon his core values, or did he hold onto them under a messy political situation?

What Actually Happened?

The main charge is familiar: Bennett sat with Arab and leftist parties. For many on the right, that feels like crossing a red line. But the concern was never just symbolic. It was practical. Would these partners end up reshaping Israel’s security posture or national priorities? When we look at what actually happened, despite many predictions of doom, the feared scenario just didn’t happen. Under Bennett, Israel responded to every projectile from Gaza. IDF operations in Judea and Samaria continued — and intensified — with raids carried out almost nightly for months. Terrorist incentives were not expanded. Salaries for soldiers, including reservists, were increased. Terrorists’ homes were demolished and bodies withheld. Jerusalem policy held steady despite pressure from Hamas and from the Biden administration. The arson balloon attacks from Gaza that had plagued the south in prior years disappeared. Violent crime in the Arab sector dropped without any concessions on security or national red lines. That’s not the profile of a government that traded principles for survival. It’s continuity with the worldview Bennett brought into politics in the first place.

The Ra’am Question

The concern about Ra’am deserves to be taken seriously. Ra’am is an Islamist party with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. It froze coalition talks during Gaza operations and some of its representatives have celebrated terrorist releases. None of that is trivial. But Bennett set clear limits. Ra’am got no ministry. No seat in the security cabinet. No role in executive decision-making. And no veto over security operations. Here’s a useful thought experiment. Imagine a Ra’am representative meeting with anti-Israel Palestinian nationalists, trying to win their backing. They demand real achievements for their agenda. Not symbolism or marginal improvements, but concrete gains they couldn’t have gotten from a Netanyahu government without Arab parties. After a year of Bennett’s government, the honest answer is: practically nothing. The IDF operated without constraint. Gaza responses proceeded as needed. Security policy held firm. Ra’am got budgets for crime enforcement, education, and infrastructure, all issues that didn’t conflict with Bennett’s stated agenda.

National Unity Without Strategic Retreat

The coalition was far from ideal. Bennett worked with parties he fundamentally disagrees with. But in 2021, no governing majority existed without uncomfortable partnerships. The alternative wasn’t a clean right-wing government. It was a fifth election, continued paralysis, and a country without a functioning government while security threats persisted. Bennett chose to build a government and to draw clear lines around what he would and would not compromise on. That ties into another consistent theme in his politics: national unity. Bennett has argued for years that Israel can’t afford permanent internal war of bloc against bloc, election after election while external threats remain. His bet was that lowering the internal political temperature didn’t have to come at the expense of Israel’s security or strategic interests. The record suggests he managed both.

Judge Trust by Actions

The claim that “he’ll say anything to get elected” only works if his actions in power contradicted his beliefs. But they didn’t. What changed was coalition structure. What didn’t change were core policies. He broke a tactical promise about who he’d sit with. He did not break his commitments on security or national priorities. So if you’re weighing whether Bennett is trustworthy, don’t stop at the slogan that he “broke his promises.” Look at what he did when forced to choose between ideological purity and national responsibility. Look at whether the security policies you care about were maintained or abandoned. There’s a difference between a politician who changes his values to gain power and one who accepts political discomfort to defend the values that matter most.