‘The threat is a lie’: Meet Israel’s lone anti-war voice in parliament

2026-03-06 - 00:13

Ofer Cassif tells RT the war is driven by personal and political agendas, not real threats As Israel and the United States press ahead with their sweeping military campaign against Iran, political consensus in Jerusalem appears nearly absolute. In Israel, the war has drawn support across much of the political spectrum. Opposition leader Yair Lapid, long a fierce critic of Netanyahu, has embarked on a series of international interviews defending the campaign. Former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, another political rival, described the offensive as an effort to weaken “the machinery of oppression” in Iran so that its people might later decide their own future. But inside the 120-seat Knesset, one lawmaker is challenging the official narrative, arguing the war is driven less by security than by political calculation. Ofer Cassif, the only Jewish member of the predominantly Arab Hadash party, has emerged as one of the very few lawmakers openly opposing the war. In an interview with RT, he offered a sharply critical assessment of its motives, timing and likely trajectory. Read more How Washington keeps breaking the Middle East Lies, power, and elections behind the war RT: Israel and the US say that the war was needed to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and to stop the threat of their ballistic missiles. How grounded are these claims? Cassif: It’s important to remember that last June, after the first aggression against Iran, Netanyahu declared the following: “We achieved a historic victory. We removed the nuclear missile threat. We eliminated Iran’s nuclear project and its missile industry.” So he lied then, and he’s lying now about both the nuclear weapons and the threat of the missiles. The real reason behind the aggression is the political and economic interests of the government of Israel and the administration of the United States, Trump’s administration. That’s the real reason. It has nothing to do with a real threat. Obviously, that doesn’t mean that I have any kind of sympathy for the regime of Iran. I am against it. But at the same time, I’m against this aggression because it has nothing to do with the well-being of the Iranian people, whom I support in their struggle. And it has nothing to do with the threat, as I just mentioned. It has everything to do with economic and political interests, including the personal interests of Netanyahu, who wants to declare early elections and present himself as the savior of Israel vis-à-vis the Iranians and the whole region. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (C) visits Palmachim Airbase accompanied by Defense Minister Israel Katz (L) and IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir (R) on March 3, 2026. © Global Look Press / Keystone Press Agency / Maayan Toaf / Israel Gpo RT: Another claim that Israeli politicians are now repeating is that Israel is leading a war against radical Islam for the sake of the free world. What is your position on this? Cassif: Netanyahu doesn’t care about Islam or radical Islam. He doesn’t care about the Iranian regime, the well-being of the Iranian people, or even the Israeli people. He cares only about himself. He’s terrified of prison. He knows that once he loses political power, he may rapidly find himself behind bars because of the trial pending against him. That’s the real reason for his rhetoric. He’s not saving the world from radical Islam. And in any case, I don’t believe radical Islam is the main problem the world faces today. Of course, fanatic Islam is a problem, like any fanaticism. But I don’t think it’s worse than fanatic evangelicals in the United States or so-called religious Zionist fanaticism in Israel. Read more Türkiye has entered Israel’s threat narrative. What’s next? The main danger the world faces is capitalism, which is responsible for these aggressions as well as the climate crisis, which is probably the greatest long-term threat we all face. Unfortunately, leaders like Netanyahu, Trump, and others make that problem more severe. That is what we need to confront and deal with, not radical Islam. RT: What about the timing of the attack? Why now? Cassif: The timing of the aggression serves the interests of both Netanyahu and Trump, first and foremost personally. As I mentioned, there are midterm elections in the United States, and elections here are supposed to be in October but apparently may be moved to June. Unfortunately, both of these leaders and their surrounding administrations believe that such aggression will serve them electorally. From marginalized to heard? RT: You have been one of the very few voices who has spoken against the war. How are you perceived in Israel and how isolated do you feel? Cassif: It’s been quite systematic since the state was established: every time there is a war, or any kind of conflict or crisis, unfortunately there is a conformism among the vast majority of the people in Israel, especially politicians. So we got used to being relatively isolated and marginalized because we are actually the only political force that has always been against any kind of aggression and war. A view of a damaged building, struck days earlier, during the US-Israeli military campaign on March 4, 2026 in Tehran, Iran. © Majid Saeedi / Getty Images Up until now, we’ve seen that, although we were always the first and only ones to oppose wars like, for instance, the first Lebanon War or the attack on Gaza before the genocide began almost three years ago. In the beginning we were always marginalized and isolated. But after a while, more and more people, including politicians and political groups, began to understand that those wars or aggressions were a sham. Nowadays, because of the last two and a half years since the massacre of October [2023], there are more people, not necessarily politically aligned with us, who do not trust Netanyahu and the government and his coalition in general. We are still a minority, still marginalized, but not as before. Read more This could prove to be America’s Achilles’ heel in the Iran war RT: Although you are now a minority, with 81 percent of the Israeli public supporting the war, according to a recent poll, how realistic is it for you to influence the discourse and stop the war? Cassif: I believe that in the future, if the war doesn’t stop, as destruction and death grow within Israel too, perish the thought, we may find ourselves perhaps even in the majority. As I said before, the anti-war camp in Israel is big, but not big enough. It’s definitely not the majority. It is realistic to influence, because there are also objective circumstances. As this aggression evolves, I’m afraid we are going to see such a toll that more and more people in Israel will align with us against the war. I don’t think we will be able to stop the aggression internally at the moment. I think the only way to stop the aggression now is if the American public, which, according to polls, already has a majority against the war, takes to the streets. Especially if within the Republican base, there is a very clear public indication against the aggression. Trump, particularly as the midterm elections approach, might stop the war for his own sake. Just like Netanyahu, he also cares only about himself. So the key is in the hands of the American public. If they take to the streets or apply sufficient pressure on Trump and his administration, I think the aggression could stop. A lone voice in a time of war As Israeli jets continue their operations and Washington signals its unwavering backing, the political establishment in Jerusalem remains largely united behind the campaign. Yet Cassif’s dissent underscores that consensus is not absolute. Whether his warnings will resonate more broadly depends, as he suggests, on how the conflict unfolds, on the battlefield, in the streets of Israeli cities, and perhaps most decisively, in the political climate of the United States. For now, in a parliament of 120 members, his remains one of the few voices openly arguing that the war marketed as a matter of survival may, in fact, be a matter of political survival.