On Sunday, Benny Gantz – the leader of National Unity, Israel’s second largest political party – resigned from the country’s ruling government. His decision made headlines, but its real impact on the Gaza war and Israel’s political future is unclear.
Gantz’s departure was not a surprise. In mid-May, he Set out an ultimatum: Either Netanyahu develops a clear and reasonable plan to end the Gaza war, or Gantz resigns from the government on June 8. Netanyahu did not, and Gantz followed through on his threat (with the announcement delayed by a day Saturday’s Israeli raid on Gaza that freed four hostages and killed more than 200 Palestinians)
“Netanyahu prevents us from moving toward real victory,” Gantz said in his departure speech.
In the short term, these resignations are likely to have little practical effect.
While Gantz is correct that Israel’s lack of a defined end game is strategically disastrous, he did not have enough influence within the government to force Netanyahu to adopt one. In fact, the prime minister still has enough seats in the Knesset (Israel’s parliament) to remain in power after Gantz’s resignation – meaning there will be no immediate change in government.
To truly make a meaningful change, Gantz and his opposition allies would need to convince five Knesset members to vote to leave the current ruling coalition and call new elections. It’s possible that could happen, but there’s no guarantee.
If the government falls, it will be a big deal. This is arguably the most plausible scenario by which the war could end. And we are certainly a bit closer to that reality than we were with Gantz in government.
How close? We’ll find out soon.
Ken Gantz resigned
Prior to October 7, Gantz was the leader of Israel’s opposition. He coordinated factions ranging from right to left to thwart Netanyahu’s attempts to seize control of Israel’s judiciary and potentially do serious damage to Israeli democracy. Opposing Netanyahu — as well as his government of far-right and ultra-Orthodox religious hardliners — was Gantz’s central reason for staying in politics.
Hamas joined Gantz and the National Unity Government on an emergency basis following the attack. Part of the agreement was that Gantz would be one of three members of Israel’s “war cabinet”: an ad hoc body that would collectively make big-picture war decisions. The other two were Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Galant, a relatively moderate member of Netanyahu’s Likud party who opposed judicial reform from within.
From Gantz’s point of view, being part of the war cabinet was worth partnering with the hostile Netanyahu. In this arrangement, he and Gallant can check Netanyahu’s far-right allies and shape Israeli policy for the better.
“We [joined] Because we knew it was a bad government,” Gantz said in his exit speech. “The people of Israel…need unity and support like they need air to breathe.”
Over the months, the limits of this (always questionable) theory became clear. Try as he might, Gantz has been unable to push Netanyahu toward a clear and plausible theory for ending the war and the subsequent political situation in Gaza.
Although Netanyahu could survive without Gantz, he can’t The extreme right survives without religious Judaism groups. The faction is diametrically opposed to the only possible scenario for a non-Hamas post-war Gaza government – one that puts some form of Palestinian government in charge of the Strip. Instead, they want Netanyahu to announce that Israel will reoccupy Gaza and rebuild Jewish settlements on its land.
Netanyahu cannot support such a plan without rebellion within his Likud party; Gallant said openly opposes any repossession. But Netanyahu cannot afford to lose religious Judaism by supporting Palestinian control of Gaza, the only other possible option.
The only option for Netanyahu to keep his government together is to continue the war indefinitely – over Gantz’s objections. And that’s exactly what happened. Ultimately, Gantz felt that he could no longer participate in a government that clearly put Netanyahu’s political interests ahead of Israel’s national interests.
Why Gantz’s resignation doesn’t matter – yet
The logic of Gantz’s resignation suggests that, at first glance, this is essentially an impotent task. He is essentially admitting that he is not really shaping war policy at the most basic level and that he lacks the influence to change the government’s political calculus.
For now, that means Netanyahu will stay in office and continue a deadly and strategically dubious war. Palestinians will continue to die, and Gaza will continue to burn, in the name of the “total defeat” of Hamas that still proves elusive. This nightmare will continue until the coalition collapses or Netanyahu is forced out of power in some other way.
There is only one plausible way that Gantz’s resignation in particular could hasten the fall of Netanyahu’s government: triggering a defection from Galant and others on the more moderate side of Netanyahu’s Likud party.
Traditionally, Likud was Israel’s leading center-right party. In Netanyahu’s last few years, it has gone through a trajectory similar to that of the Republican Party under Donald Trump: toward the radical right. However, some more traditionally-minded Likudnik parties are in the Knesset delegation — and Gallant is their leading figure.
If fighting a war without Netanyahu and Gantz proves intolerable for this group, they may revolt. It will vote with Gantz and other coalition parties on a parliamentary motion to dissolve the government and schedule new elections. If there is an election, polling indicates that Gantz is widely favored to become the next prime minister.
What does any of this mean for the future of the Gaza conflict?
If Gantz’s departure marks a larger departure from Netanyahu’s government, such a shift would be significant — and potentially transformative.
Immediately, Gantz is more likely to accept American backed armistice agreement — which includes a prisoner-for-hostage swap between Israel and Hamas. In the long term, he is more likely to assume control of the Palestinian Authority over Gaza. Even longer term, he is more likely to strike a deal with Saudi Arabia to take “firm action” toward a Palestinian state in exchange for Saudi diplomatic recognition of Israel.
But we are still several “ifs” away from all that. We don’t know what Galant and his like-minded inside Likud are thinking – or how the next few weeks and months of a Gantz-less government will change their minds.
So right now, the world is basically in a holding pattern. Gantz’s resignation doesn’t matter much now, and may not matter at all in the long run. But if events go a certain way, it could be the beginning of the end of the Gaza war.
