Yoav Gallant. Again.
For the second time in 14 months, the deep-voiced, unsmiling, staccato-speaking defense minister with a penchant for threatening Israel’s enemies with Rambo-like retribution gave a brief press conference on Wednesday in which he challenged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and set the whole country talking.
In March 2023, his ultimatum to Netanyahu to stop the judicial reform plan set people not only to talking but also to marching, as tens of thousands of people took to the streets in protest after Netanyahu said he would fire him.
Gallant causes issues for Netanyahu
Fourteen months ago, Gallant publicly sounded the alarm over the judicial overhaul plan, saying aloud what the heads of the army and security services had been whispering into his ears for weeks.
“As Israel’s defense minister, I say clearly that the breach within the nation has penetrated deep into the IDF and the defense establishment – this is a clear, real, and immediate danger to the security of the state,” he said then.
The same pattern – the same modus operandi – was on display in Gallant’s seven-minute address on Wednesday.
He again gave voice to what the army and heads of the security services have been whispering to him in private for weeks, and which they leaked in briefings to reporters last week: that the lack of a governmental plan for the “day after” in Gaza is hindering the IDF’s ability to win this war; that the failure to make sure someone else fills the vacuum that the IDF leaves when it exits areas in Gaza it has already pacified means that Hamas will take over, and the IDF will have to return to the same battlegrounds over and over.
“As long as Hamas retains control over civilian life in Gaza, it may rebuild and strengthen, thus requiring the IDF to return and fight in areas where it has already operated,” Gallant said, adding that the establishment of a governing alternative in Gaza is critical, but that the government is not making decisions on this matter.
“In the absence of such an alternative, only two negative options remain: Hamas’s rule in Gaza or Israeli military rule in Gaza. The meaning of indecision is choosing one of the negative options. It would erode our military achievements, lessen the pressure on Hamas, and sabotage the chances of achieving a framework for the release of hostages.”
In a damning indictment of Netanyahu’s leadership, the defense minister said that “indecision is, in essence, a decision.” He then called on Netanyahu to make a decision, rule out Israeli military governance of Gaza or Hamas’s continued civilian control, and raise a “governing alternative to Hamas in the Gaza Strip,” which he said needs to be a “nonhostile Palestinian governing alternative.”
Unlike in March, this time Netanyahu did not fire Gallant – at least not yet – although several coalition members, including some members of his own party, are calling upon him to do just that.
Netanyahu is reluctant to fire the defense minister, who has been a pain in his side since the formation of this government in December 2022, because of stark political considerations.
Firing Gallant would likely result in National Unity Party head Benny Gantz and his faction leaving the government. A couple of Likud MKs – perhaps David Bitan, Yuli Edelstein, Avi Dichter, and Eli Dalal – might support Gallant, potentially depriving Netanyahu of his Knesset majority and possibly bringing down the government.
So instead of firing Gallant, Netanyahu made do with releasing a brief video dismissing the defense minister’s assessment, saying that Israel is not going to replace Hamas rule in Gaza with Fatah rule there, which, in his mind, is little better.
Though this time Gallant’s speech did not trigger demonstrations, the demonstrations that are already taking place on a regular basis – demonstrations on behalf of a hostage deal, demonstrations calling for new elections, and demonstrations that are a blend of both – will now draw on Gallant’s words for support and proof that the government has lost its way.
THE MOST damning sentence in Gallant’s speech, a sentence that Netanyahu’s opponents will inevitably pounce on and feature in future campaign advertisements and that will be repeated at anti-government protests, is: “We must make tough decisions for the future of our country, favoring national priorities above all other possible considerations, even with the possibility of personal or political costs.”
With that sentence, Gallant gave succor to all those saying that the prime minister’s decisions during the war were motivated more by personal and political considerations than national interest. Here it was the country’s defense minister making that assessment, not opposition head Yair Lapid.
This is a particularly severe indictment to be leveled against a nation’s leader at a time when fighting rages, when soldiers are being killed, and when tens of thousands of citizens have been forced out of their homes.
It also indicates a lack of faith among senior government ministers in their own government. If the defense minister lacks faith in the prime minister’s decision-making, how can the public be expected to trust the prime minister or the government’s abilities? The loss of public trust in the government during wartime can be disastrous.
People will be willing to sacrifice when they trust the leaders who ask for those sacrifices. But when that trust dissolves, the question will be, “Why should I sacrifice?” And Israel cannot afford to go there.
Gallant’s stand against Netanyahu in March earned him abundant praise in the media, which portrayed him as a courageous figure and often dubbed him the “only adult in the room.”
The reflexive response by many to his words on Wednesday was that he was rising to the occasion once again and that the calls for his dismissal by the far-right flank of the government were little more than the predictable cackling of the government’s fanatics (Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich).
AFTER GALLANT’S speech, however, Gideon Sa’ar, head of the New Hope-United Right faction, took a more critical view, hinting in a tweet that Gallant was looking for excuses as to why the defense establishment has yet to achieve the war’s objectives.
“The role of the security establishment is to lead to a return of security to the South and the North, and not to look for excuses for not achieving the war’s aims,” he tweeted.
According to this school of thought, the fixation on a “day after” is simply a matter of dangling a false panacea before the public, as if the only thing standing in the way of victory is deciding who will take control of Gaza once Hamas is ousted.
Netanyahu answers that until Hamas’s military capabilities are destroyed, it is useless to talk about a “day after,” because no moderate force would be willing to take its place, because to do so would be to risk being killed. Talk of a “day after,” according to Netanyahu, is unrealistic until Hamas’s military capabilities have been destroyed, and fixating on it now is an effort by the defense establishment to shift the blame onto the political echelon for why the war is taking so long.
And the war is taking long, too long, something the public is reminded of day after day as the media recounts how many days the hostages have been held in cruel captivity. As the war drags on, certain dynamics are inevitable and were predicted at the very outset.
First, the longer the war, the more international support is lost. This was clear from day one, as images of the carnage in Israel were replaced with footage of the damage in Gaza.
Second, the longer the war, the more likely tensions regarding its prosecution will emerge within the government.
Finally, as the war drags on, the public will begin asking why it is taking so long, whether it is worth it anymore, and what soldiers are still doing in enemy territory.
That last question is different from the “what are we doing there?” question that was asked during the First Lebanon War, which many saw as a war of choice foisted onto the nation by then defense minister Ariel Sharon.
The current war is different. The public does not perceive it as a war of choice but as a war imposed on the country against its wishes, one that it must win convincingly to deter future enemies near and far.Nevertheless, as even a just war of no choice drags on, questions will be raised about necessity, utility, and tactics – all legitimate questions that sap the nation’s fighting spirit.
The nation’s spirit is fortified when it has faith and trust in its leaders. It is sapped when it loses that trust and believes that the leaders are motivated by other considerations – perhaps political considerations or looking for excuses to evade blame.
Netanyahu said that what is needed is to defeat Hamas in Gaza, thereby subtly deflecting problems in waging the war onto the security establishment.
Gallant said what is needed is to spell out a “day after” plan, thereby subtly deflecting problems in waging the war onto the political echelon.
What is required as much as any of that is a government that enjoys the public’s trust, something that the Gallant-Netanyahu duel this week neither promoted nor inspired.