Resignations Rock Netanyahu’s Coalition
2024-06-11210 view
Israelis opposed to the war in Gaza and critical of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s domestic policies are hoping that high-profile resignations on June 9 could help topple his 18-month-old government, whose brutal policies that have dragged the Middle East to the edge of all-out war and created a humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip.
Israelis themselves have not been unscathed by the disaster in Gaza, which has impose heavy economic and security costs on them, not to mention the deaths, injuries and psychological impact on Israeli society, leaving it sick, unbalanced and in constant anticipation of the sound of sirens warning of missiles about to fall nearby.
The resignations of war cabinet member Benny Gantz and former Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot, along with the rest of their National Unity or State Camp bloc in Israel’s parliament, were a largely symbolic blow to Netanyahu’s ruling coalition, dominated by the far right and ultra-Orthodox Jewish (Haredi) parties.
That said, over the longer term the resignations are likely to strengthen the opposition’s efforts to topple this government, theoretically providing a launchpad for early general elections and the formation of a new bloc that could overthrow Netanyahu and his Likud Party.
Despite the hopes some of Netanyahu’s rivals have pinned on the resignations of Gantz and his bloc, genuine change is still a long way off. Despite the National Unity bloc’s departure, Netanyahu’s coalition still holds 64 out of 120 seats in the Knesset, meaning it remains capable of clinging on and shooting down a hypothetical vote of no confidence—were the opposition to table one. Toppling the government from within would require a wave of resignations that remains a remote possibility. Indeed, Gantz, a bitter opponent of Netanyahu, was an outlier in the PM’s latest coalition, having joined it in the aftermath of the shock October 7 attack on Israel by Hamas, on the understanding that he would return to the opposition once the war was over.
Why did Gantz resign?
The resignations of Gantz and his allies came three weeks after the centrist military veteran issued an ultimatum to Netanyahu, setting out a number of conditions for staying on, including: changes to how government decisions were made, an altered strategy in Gaza, the destruction of Hamas rule, the disarming of the Gaza Strip, the formation of an international civil administration in the territory, and the adoption of a new vision for Israeli military service.
With this ultimatum, Gantz and his party wanted to push Netanyahu to build a reasonable and serious partnership and to restore trust with Israel’s strategic partners, especially the United States, as well as reining in policies that have turned the West Bank into a tinderbox, and returning Israeli hostages through a negotiated exchange with Hamas.
Gantz has emerged as a strong potential candidate to succeed Netanyahu. Most opinion polls conducted over the past eight months have placed him in the lead on the question of who would make a better prime minister. He had maintained this lead until the final week before his resignation.
Since Gantz joined the coalition at the beginning of the Gaza War, Washington has viewed him as someone able to support its policies in the region and who shares the Democratic Party’s vision: an end to the war, the launch of a process leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state, in parallel with a wide-ranging process of normalization with other Middle Eastern countries. In this, he contrasts sharply with the extremist right-wing components of Netanyahu’s coalition, which have undermined and obstructed Washington’s agenda. U.S. hopes in Gantz as a future premier had reached their peak in May 2024, amid reports that Gantz had essentially become Washington’s envoy to the Israeli government.
The Impact of Resignations
The resignations of Gantz and his bloc are significant and could precede further steps to undermine or bring down Netanyahu’s government. That said, given its majority in the Knesset, the coalition of Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud, extreme religious parties Shas and United Torah Judaism, the Religious Zionist party and Otzma Yehudit, and the Orthodox religious Zionist Noam party is not in immediate danger of falling.
The main implications of the resignations are as follows. Firstly, Gantz’s move saves his face with voters, who for months have seen him as Israel’s most credible option for prime minister. Threatening to resign then carrying through on his threat may have boosted his credibility and by extension, his popularity. Forthcoming opinion polls will reveal whether or not this is the case.
Secondly, Gantz’s resignation and return to the opposition coincides with moves since May by secular nationalist Israel Beytenu party leader Avigdor Lieberman to build a center-right bloc and a joint operations room, in cooperation with Likud defector Gideon Sa’ar and the leader of the opposition, Yair Lapid. The bloc would aim to topple the Likud in Israel’s next elections. Lieberman had called on Gantz to resign from the government and join him.
Thirdly, Gantz’s resignation from the government at this time allows him to distance himself from current and future accusations directed at the government and the political elite over their performance in the war on the Gaza Strip. Gantz was not part of the government prior to the shock Hamas attack of October 7—rather, he joined during the early days of the war. His resignation, eight months in, gives him room to maneuver and allows him to argue that he had opposed the government’s decisions during the war, which eventually pushed him to resign.
The Impact of Resignations
As explained above, the resignations of Gantz and his bloc will not lead immediately to the fall of Netanyahu’s government. On the contrary, in the short term, they serve the interests of the far-right and religious Zionist parties, increasing their stranglehold over Netanyahu’s decisions.
Yet in the longer term, these moves may pave the way for a new political movement that could prove the undoing of Netanyahu’s government. Standing in the way of the coalition’s collapse is the fact that none of its components have an interest in withdrawing from it, due to the advantages that each party obtains from being in power. This is despite bitter political wrangling over a conscription law that would require ultra-Orthodox Jews to serve in the army. Unless a deal is reached on this dispute, it could potentially lead to the withdrawal of one of the two Haredi parties from the coalition.
Thus, Gantz’s resignation could have several consequences. Firstly, it strengthens the opposition and gives new momentum to the mass protest movement against Netanyahu. Gantz has robbed Netanyahu and his government of the veneer of a national unity government comprising diverse components. The resignations expose Netanyahu’s extreme right-wing, religious government to further criticism, both domestic and foreign.
Secondly, the resignations could lead to another party joining Netanyahu’s government. Possible candidates include Gideon Sa’ar’s New Hope party, which left the coalition in March. Alternatively, Lieberman could renounce his dream of toppling Likud and find a pretext—or extract a generous political offer—to join the government. Either of these scenarios would deal a sharp blow to Gantz and his party. Thus, the resignations should be seen as a bet, whose outcome will be determined by further developments.
Finally, in their resignation speeches, Gantz and Eisenkot said they were ready to return to government were a national unity administration to be formed that would serve the interests of all sectors. Both thus left the door open to a return, in speeches marked by conciliatory language confirming that they would support the government in “correct decisions.” Thus, it seems that Gantz and his partner are spreading their bets, pending further developments.
