In what may be the most vocal dispute and dissent within Israel’s government and war cabinet since October 7, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant publicly aired their sharp differences over the future of the Gaza Strip on Wednesday evening.
At a news conference in the Kirya, Israel’s military headquarters, broadcast on TV and radio channels, Gallant called on Netanyahu to publicly rule out future Israeli rule over Gaza and instead work to establish an alternative to Hamas with international support. While reiterating the government’s goals of defeating Hamas and returning the hostages, Gallant said these must be complemented by steps to lay the groundwork for post-war Gaza.
“The ‘day after Hamas’ will only be achieved with Palestinian entities taking control of Gaza, accompanied by international actors, establishing a governing alternative to Hamas’s rule,” Gallant said.
Gallant calls on Netanyahu to make a decision
“I call on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to make a decision and declare that Israel will not establish civilian control over the Gaza Strip, that Israel will not establish civilian control over the Gaza Strip, that Israel will not establish military governance in the Gaza Strip, and that a governing alternative to Hamas in the Gaza Strip will be raised immediately.”
About an hour later, Netanyahu roundly rejected Gallant’s position, stating: “I am not willing to replace Hamastan with Fatahstan. The first condition for ‘the day after’ is to eliminate Hamas – and do it without excuses.”
As the prime minister has indicated in the past, he opposes the idea that the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority returns to governing Gaza, arguing that “Fatahstan” could replace “Hamastan” as an armed militia that would pose a security threat to Israel. Whether he is right or wrong is not the issue here.
The ministers to Netanyahu’s right, including Finance Minister Betzalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, immediately called for Gallant’s dismissal. “Such a defense minister must be replaced to achieve the war’s goals,” Ben-Gvir said.
But ministers to Netanyahu’s left, most notably National Unity leader Benny Gantz, backed Gallant’s position, saying he “spoke the truth.” “It is the responsibility of the leadership to do the right thing for the country, at any price,” Gantz said.
We urge the prime minister and his government to take a middle path. Although Gallant made some salient points – including a statement that he had tried since October to promote a plan to set up a “non-hostile Palestinian governing alternative” to Hamas but got no response from the cabinet – he should not have aired dirty laundry and openly criticized the prime minister and the government.
On the other hand, the government does need to do a better job of clarifying its endgame and communicating it to the Israeli public, which is growing increasingly frustrated over not knowing where we’re heading.
As IDF soldiers continue to fight in the war against Hamas, with more and more sacrificing their lives, the public has a right to know what the prime minister and his government are planning for the day after.
Netanyahu has made it clear that he believes Israel must retain overall security control over Gaza after the war and signaled that he would like a multinational force to be deployed. Still, he has opposed reoccupying the territory the Sharon government withdrew from in 2005 under what became known as the Disengagement.
“We do not support and will not support an Israeli occupation. We also, of course, do not support Hamas governance in Gaza,” Blinken told journalists at a press conference in Kyiv on Wednesday, adding, “We also can’t have anarchy and a vacuum that’s likely to be filled by chaos. There needs to be a clear and concrete plan, and we look to Israel to come forward with its ideas.”
The Netanyahu-Gallant feud is essentially a power struggle over policy surrounding this fundamental question: Who will rule Gaza after the war? This time, the prime minister might take a cue from how the military deals with such things: Gallant should be reprimanded, but his essential point – spelling out what Israel’s endgame is – must be addressed.