Channel 12’s “Ovda” went on hiatus after concluding a season yesterday with a final episode that was supposed to shock the heads of the Sifs after the harsh words of the former Shin Bet chief Nadav Argman who attacked the prime minister with an outpouring of foam, as no other “former” before him dared to do openly and publicly.
Although in his harsh words Argaman actually marked Netanyahu as an enemy of the people who is a danger to the country, and therefore he must be replaced immediately. Argaman even went further and said that from a value point of view, it is absolutely forbidden for Netanyahu to be a candidate to head the Likud when elections are held. However, if we delve into the depth of things, Argaman did not renew grandiosity and sieges, and repeated things that many good people had already said before him. Except that Argman summarized the main things that had already been said, and summarized them into a comprehensive, sharp, poignant, and unequivocal statement, and without hesitating that he was insulting the honor of a sitting Prime Minister, as other commentators have hesitated in the past six months.
And what did others say before him? Netanyahu is guilty of the failures of October 7th when he did not stop the crazy legislation and thereby caused a division and rift that weakened Israeli society, and Hamas recognized the same weakness and saw it as an opportunity to attack. They said that he must resign and hold new elections before he leads us all to the abyss, and in the language of Argaman: “to perdition”. They said that Netanyahu is motivated by political and personal considerations and not by considerations of the good of the state. They said he strengthened Hamas and weakened the PA instead of doing the opposite.
They said that he was not interested in the end of the war because then he would be forced to put down the keys, and from this they concluded that a complete victory for him is only his political survival, and is more important to him than the fate of the country. They said he had an opportunity to eliminate senior Hamas officials but did not take advantage of it. Argaman elaborated on the subject and revealed that during his tenure as head of the Shin Bet, operative proposals were even submitted on how to eliminate those senior officials, but they were rejected by the political echelon and its head.
They said that Netanyahu appointed a delusional and disordered government made up of extremist people, some of whom have been criminalized in the past. They said that Netanyahu is a danger to democracy and wants to build a dictatorship here that is above the law, and he is the great dictator, he will determine who the people of the law will be.
Ilana Dayan, as usual in the sacred, knew how to steer the conversation to the places where she wanted to direct them, that is, in the direction of harsh criticism and uncompromising criticism against the Prime Minister, as she questions the interviewer and cross-examines pointed and defiant questions. For example, when Argaman said that during his tenure he explicitly told the government and its head that Hamas was not deterred and that we must go to a pre-emptive war in Gaza, Dayan wondered how it was that Argaman was not able to convince and influence at the time. “Maybe it’s because they didn’t count you at all?” Dayan wondered.
Another challenging question was posed by Dayan, when she tried to understand Argaman’s conception that the PA needs to be strengthened and even equipped with military weapons, because it is the one that needs to rule Gaza instead of Hamas, with the help of neighboring Sunni countries. Dayan was quick to respond: What if the PA uses the same military weapon against us? Dayan even reminded Argman that Ben Gvir called him “Evil” that he wants to get along with the PA, when it finances terrorists. Argaman flatly dismissed his words, and did not bother to honor them with an appropriate response.
Dayan’s pointed and sometimes defiant questions also invited pointed answers from the interviewee, which are not ambiguous, and it was clear that she was striving to achieve the title, which definitively kills Netanyahu and completely doubts his competence to lead the country. And indeed she got her title. Argaman’s message: “Netanyahu is not qualified.”
But aside from Ilana Dayan’s journalistic maneuvers and her distinct skills to lead her interviewee by the nose, to the place she wants, she forgot to ask him three intriguing questions.
Ilana Dayan (Photo: Yonatan Zindel Flash 90)
One of them: if Argaman thinks that elections should be held today in order to replace the prime minister who he believes can no longer be trusted, not even when he appoints a new head of the Shin Bet, what will happen if the Likud wins again in those elections?
Although Argaman replied regarding the appointment of a new Shin Bet chief, that if the appointment is not based on the professionalism of the person elected to the position, but on his political leanings, he, Argaman will do everything to prevent it, within the scope of the freedom of action given to a citizen in a democratic country who opposes the government’s policy. However, the question remains The question is: What if the Likud and Netanyahu win the elections again?
Another question Dane missed. What will happen if an investigative committee is not established, because in the meantime, there are no signs that efforts are being made by Netanyahu and his government to establish one? I assume that if Argaman had been asked about the issue, in light of his approach that is strongly opposed to Netanyahu’s policy, he would have given the same answer as he did regarding the appointment of the head of the Shin Bet: that he would fight for such a committee to be established.
There was a moment during the interview when Argaman admitted that Netanyahu was a level-headed and sharp-minded person in the past, who acted with reason and judgment, and therefore, he does not at all suspect Netanyahu that people like Ben Gabir and Smotrich are among his favorites. On the contrary, Argaman revealed that he can testify that Netanyahu even despises and mocks people like this duo.
Here, Dayan had the opportunity to ask Argaman the following question related to the issue of returning the abductees, and it is: If you think that Netanyahu is smart and reasonable, would it be possible for him to delay a deal to return the abductees as many think, which could only further damage his image and his survival? After all, logic says that he is shooting himself in the foot if he intentionally and maliciously delays such a deal.
I suspect that Argman would have been careful not to decide that Netanyahu was maliciously delaying a deal with Hamas, but he did not hesitate to state unequivocally that the return of the kidnapped is a supreme value and that they should be returned even at the cost of ending the war and releasing security prisoners with blood on their hands, because “we have no other choice.” A bold statement, but he didn’t invent the wheel this time either, because Shaul Mofaz preceded him some time ago and said similar things in one of the interviews.
That is why I return to my same impression, that Argman did not innovate much, but the serious tone and style of a first-rate senior in the security ranks, and above all the sincerity that was evident in his words, definitely left their mark and created an upheaval, which has one goal: to make the public think twice, before they cast their ballots in the next election.
