The revolt against Binyamin Netanyahu

FOR MONTHS generals and ministers in Israel have been warning from behind the scenes that the government of Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, lacks a coherent strategy for the war in Gaza and its aftermath. Now at last these bitter arguments are breaking into the open. Israel’s war cabinet and security establishment are drawing ever closer to an open revolt against Mr Netanyahu, and are clear they want a sharp change of direction or new government. The shift comes as the prime minister faces the threat of an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (icc). Meanwhile Jake Sullivan, America’s national security adviser, landed in Israel on May 19th. He had just been in Saudi Arabia, where he was finalising a blockbuster security deal with the kingdom that includes proposals for remaking how Palestinians are ruled.

The pivot against Mr Netanyahu began not with the politicians but with the Israel Defence Forces (IDF). In off-the-record briefings generals have accused him of blocking any day-after plans for Gaza and “squandering” Israel’s gains in the war. “It’s the prime minister’s job to set strategy,” says a general. “But when there is no strategy, it is the army’s job to warn of the dangers.” Because Mr Netanyahu has resisted the creation of an alternative force or authority to govern Gaza, there has been a vacuum which the remnants of Hamas have re-emerged to fill.

Besides the generals, two key figures have flipped from being reluctant partners of Mr Netanytahu, as ministers in his war cabinet, into open opponents. On May 15th Yoav Gallant, the defence minister, who is also the subject of a request from the icc, stated in public that his plans to create a new governing entity in Gaza, with heavy Palestinian representation, “had not been discussed and worse, no alternative has been proposed instead”. Three days later, Benny Gantz, Mr Netanyahu’s most powerful rival, said that “crucial decisions have not been made,” and accused a “small minority” of “taking control of the bridge of the Israeli ship and steering it to the rocks”. He said he would quit the war cabinet if there was no change of course by June 8th.

Mr Netanyahu has responded dismissively, accusing Mr Gantz of advocating policies which would mean “an end to the war and Israel’s defeat”. Two big questions now loom. The first is whether the government will fall. Polls suggest Mr Gantz’s party would win an election if one were held now, making him Israel’s probable next prime minister.

Were his party to quit the government, the residual Netanyahu coalition would still hold a majority in the current Knesset, Israel’s parliament. Most Israelis favour an early election, but a further five defectors from the coalition would be needed to denude it of a majority. Alternatively, the government could be brought down by the exit of the more extreme parties on whose support it relies. So far there is no clear sign that the government is about to lose its parliamentary majority, but that could change quickly.

If Mr Netanyahu bends to the demands of his more centrist critics, or is toppled, the second question is what a new policy on Gaza would look like. The Biden administration proposes that a “revitalised” Palestinian Authority (PA) should take over in Gaza. But building up its capacity will take years. Mr Gantz is sceptical about the PA’s president, Mahmoud Abbas, and prefers the putative new authority in Gaza to be led by a cross-section of Americans, Europeans, Arabs and Palestinians. Mr Gallant seems to prefer giving control to local elements in Gaza, aligned perhaps with Mr Abbas’s Fatah movement.

The likes of Mr Gantz and Mr Gallant agree that Israel should not run Gaza’s affairs; all implicitly think, however, that the IDF should retain a strong security presence in the strip. There is less agreement on the end-game that follows any de-escalation of the war. The Biden administration wants a pathway to an eventual Palestinian state. Mr Gallant and Mr Gantz are reluctant to endorse this, not least because it would be unpopular in Israel.

This is the maelstrom in which Mr Sullivan has flown. America is keen to secure a ceasefire and hostage swap. This, it hopes, can lead to a wider American-sponsored regional deal including “normalisation” between Israel and the Saudis. If, on the other hand, Mr Netanyahu remains in power and continues with his approach of endless war in Gaza and threatening a full-scale invasion of Rafah, the last redoubt of Hamas, America may hold up deliveries of munitions. That risks worsening Israel’s case at the International Court of Justice.

Ultimately the decision to end Mr Netanyahu’s government and its failed policy in Gaza lies with Israelis. They face a choice between permanent military occupation of Gaza; letting Hamas retain offensive capabilities; or relinquishing partial control to an outside authority that includes Palestinians but excludes Hamas. Mr Netanyahu has been put on notice by his ministers and generals that he cannot ignore this reality for much longer.■

Sign up to the Middle East Dispatch, a weekly newsletter that keeps you in the loop on a fascinating, complex and consequential part of the world.