Three Options for Netanyahu to Face Threats from His Allies and Opponents

At a time when the Israeli occupation army is facing successive failures in the Gaza Strip against the Palestinian resistance, and the “black coffins” continue to return to military cemeteries in Tel Aviv, the state’s leaders continue their own internal wars.

These wars are bloodless but filled with backstabbing, both within the same coalition and between the government and the opposition, a scene almost unprecedented in the history of a state that claims to be fighting an existential war with Hamas in Gaza.

**Warnings to Netanyahu**

Leaks from the surroundings of Benny Gantz, the head of the National Camp, former Minister of Defense, and a key member of the war council, indicate that Gantz will not wait until June 8, 2024, but may pull the rug from under Netanyahu’s feet and announce the complete dissolution of the war council early.

Benny Gantz issued a warning to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, demanding that he make decisive political choices regarding the war in Gaza and stop procrastinating in making appropriate decisions.

It is worth noting that the war council was formed days after the Al-Aqsa Flood operation to lead the war on Gaza. It included Netanyahu, Gantz, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, former army chief Gadi Eizenkot as an observer, current army chief Herzi Halevi, and National Security Council head Tzachi Hanegbi.

This was not Gantz’s first warning to Netanyahu. Gallant previously gave a dramatic speech accusing the prime minister of prioritizing personal interests over state security and delaying the completion of the “Day After” plan in Gaza.

The latest attack on Netanyahu from within the war council came from Eizenkot, who announced in a meeting with the families of Israeli prisoners that the government missed a second opportunity to retrieve their sons from Hamas’s hands by not making the right decision, a clear jab at Netanyahu.

Moreover, accusations against Netanyahu from within the war council continue, this time from General Nitzan Alon, whom Netanyahu appointed to lead negotiations with Hamas on a prisoner exchange deal.

In a closed session, Nitzan Alon did not hesitate to say, “We are desperate; there will be no exchange deal with this government’s composition,” prompting Netanyahu to reprimand those he described as “leaking” cabinet discussions outside official frameworks.

**Separate Steps**

A significant indication alongside the previous ones is that the last joint press conference held by war council members—Netanyahu, Gantz, and Gallant—was in January 2024.

This means they have not sat together at one table to address the Israeli public with a unified policy for four months. Instead, each chose to hold separate press conferences, reflecting a lack of responsible leadership managing this war.

Gantz’s recent announcement about proposing the formation of a governmental inquiry committee into the Al-Aqsa Flood operation and the subsequent Gaza war is another step towards dissolving the war council. This proposal was not well-received by Netanyahu’s team, who hinted that it had not been presented to the war council.

Netanyahu’s supporters accused Gantz of trying to market himself to the public as keen on investigating the intelligence, security, and military failures in Gaza, by showing that today’s ruling elite, headed by Netanyahu, are responsible for it. Netanyahu has refused to take any responsibility for this failure for eight months.

All of this confirms that we are witnessing the official death of the war council because it is no longer effective. It is clear to everyone that Netanyahu is using it as a “fig leaf” to the Israeli public to avoid appearing alone in managing the war.

In the coming days, we might see an official announcement of this council’s demise, whether through a preemptive move by Netanyahu or a final withdrawal by Gantz and Eizenkot, who are under significant pressure from the opposition and their supporters to leave Netanyahu “naked” alone.

**Scenarios for Netanyahu**

One option still under consideration in Netanyahu’s circles, should Gantz and Eizenkot withdraw from the war council, is to replace them with the “troublesome” ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich.

These two have long desired to join the war council to influence its decisions and steer its course towards their extremist aspirations against the Palestinians, aiming to continue the war in Gaza indefinitely.

This option seems viable for Netanyahu, sending a sharp message to Gantz that the council will not be affected by his absence, and that he will be the only loser, appearing to the Israeli public as someone who abandoned the state at a critical moment for personal and partisan reasons.

However, Netanyahu understands more than anyone that bringing these two ministers into a sensitive security and military body like the war council is akin to “bringing an elephant into a glass shop,” as they could drag Israel into a bloodbath in Gaza.

Their involvement could ignite more war fronts in the region, disrupt peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan, topple the Palestinian Authority, and turn away from the normalization agreement with Saudi Arabia, leading to further isolation for Israel.

This will add more fuel to the fire of the ongoing tension with the US administration, which has officially announced that they are not welcome in the United States, despite being Israeli ministers—who would believe it?

Furthermore, there is an unofficial “veto” that army and security leaders are not hesitant to brandish against Netanyahu, rejecting cooperation with these two ministers and refusing to discuss sensitive security and military matters in their presence.

Furthermore, these two ministers maintain a tense relationship with the state’s security and military establishment. Recently, Smotrich refused to approve a deal to purchase fighter jets that the army needs.

In the last few hours, Smotrich also faced a new rejection for not agreeing to purchase more Iron Dome batteries to counter the rockets from the Palestinian resistance targeting deep inside Israel. Meanwhile, Ben Gvir didn’t hesitate to accuse Gallant of cowardice in front of Hamas and succumbing to its threats in front of all the ministers.

All these reasons and more make granting these two individuals membership in the war council a reckless step, likely to blow it up from the inside, something Netanyahu doesn’t necessarily want, despite his tendency to surprise us occasionally, especially if they threaten to withdraw from the government unless they join the council as replacements for Gantz and Eizenkot.

If Netanyahu decides to close the chapter on the war council altogether, citing its ineffectiveness, internal collapse, and the burden it has become, he has several other bodies and entities through which he can manage the war in Gaza. The first is the Security and Political Affairs Cabinet, known as “the Cabinet,” which includes many ministers without expertise in security and military affairs and is not authorized to make sensitive decisions but only to ratify them after they are matured in more specialized forums.

The ministers in this cabinet only have “loud voices” and dictionaries full of insults, exemplified a few days ago by a vile attack from Transportation Minister Miri Regev, a close ally of Netanyahu, against army chief Halevi, claiming he turned his soldiers into “sitting ducks” in front of Hamas fighters.

Another option for Netanyahu is to form a narrow, closed six-member council that includes himself, Gallant, Halevi, Hanegbi, Mossad chief David Barnea, and Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, as they are the most informed on these sensitive issues related to the Gaza war. 

Although this six-member council, if formed, would not be entirely harmonious, with internal disputes and differences, their general stance is that they all agree on Netanyahu’s obstructive role in sealing an exchange deal and the continuation of the war in a futile manner, except for Hanegbi, who is most loyal to his leader.

The Opposition Prepares to Topple Netanyahu

Amid the intense conflicts within the right-wing government and the exchange of accusations among its various components, the opposition has finally initiated a belated movement to overthrow the government and its head.

Opposition leaders are expected to hold their first meeting in the coming hours on Wednesday, invited by the opposition leader, Yair Lapid of the Yesh Atid party, Gideon Sa’ar of the New Hope party, and Avigdor Lieberman of the Yisrael Beiteinu party. They aim to include Gantz, hoping he will withdraw from the war council before the June 8th deadline he set.

Before this meeting, which has caused concern in Netanyahu’s circles, Lieberman called on opposition members to unite efforts and form a coalition to replace the government, proposing two options:

1. A replacement government in the current Knesset.

2. Agreeing on an early election date.

Likud officials responded to the opposition’s move, calling it “meaningless.”

A few days ago, Lieberman attacked Netanyahu, stating that “we are witnessing chaos on the battlefield in Gaza, with the only war being ‘everyone against everyone’ in the war cabinet. Therefore, victory is impossible in this manner, and the worst part is that the main goal of the current political system is not to protect Israelis but to protect Netanyahu and his followers for political survival.”

These rapid developments in the Israeli political and party landscape are akin to a storm shaking the entire political system. They have caused significant uproar, with echoes still resonating in both the military and government circles, revealing structural issues in the decision-making levels in Israel, which is engaged in a fierce war in Gaza. This situation necessitates more cohesion and unity rather than division and discord.

It is uncertain whether the violent conflicts shaking the decision-making circles in Tel Aviv at various levels—political, security, military, and judicial—will cease, especially after severe and unprecedented mutual accusations of responsibility for the faltering war in Gaza. There are also fierce “immoral” battles between Netanyahu, Gallant, Gantz, and Halevi, with each accusing the other of plotting against them, reaching the level of “scandal.”

These battles have disrupted what is described as the strongest military institution in the Middle East, at a time when it faces local, regional, and international military and security challenges that require the army to be at its peak of cohesion, unified behind a single leadership.

If the opposition unites and Gantz joins them, it will add momentum to the escalating demonstrations by the families of Israeli prisoners, whose new slogan will be: Overthrow the government, not just bring back the prisoners.

The American Factor

It is difficult to overlook the American role in urging the Israeli opposition, particularly Gantz, to overthrow Netanyahu. Although not openly stated, there are underlying indications. Washington recently hosted Gantz and Lapid, who met with members of the U.S. administration and coordinated their steps with them, prompting angry reactions from Netanyahu’s entourage, reaffirming him as the primary and sole leader of the state.

This internal Israeli conflict, affecting both the military and government, has not yet peaked, given a series of violations and breaches in the state’s most critical institutions. This situation reveals mutual animosity and hatred, pervasive throughout its various aspects, fostering an atmosphere of resentment and conspiracy among politicians against each other, in the absence of a leadership framework that the state lacks.

Given the leaders’ prioritization of personal interests over state security, they engage in bloody battles among themselves, appearing more like a “mafia gang” without ethical or organizational frameworks, rather than a government and military expected to manage conflicts through administrative and organizational protocols.

Amid the exchange of accusations and accumulating rumors about ministerial and general disagreements, it is evident that this causes significant damage to the reputation of the political and military systems, ultimately affecting public trust in them.

The security and military failures in the Gaza war have sparked serious discussions within the state, addressing the primary weaknesses of the region’s most significant military power against a small group of Palestinian fighters numbering only in the thousands in Gaza’s alleys and streets.

One of the critical gaps affecting Israel in the Gaza war is the absence of “coordination” between the political institutions represented by the government and the security and political affairs cabinet, and the military institutions represented by the army and security agencies.

Instead of addressing these flaws and organizing responsibilities between the political and military levels, the Israeli adversaries resorted to mutual accusations, revealing a series of catastrophic deficiencies in decision-making processes.

There are ongoing frictions between the levels over several key decisions related to the Gaza war, the day after, tensions with Washington, global isolation, and the arrest of Israeli leaders in international courts.