Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to dissolve Israel’s war cabinet raises several questions about the management of the war against Hamas from now on.

The war cabinet, which was also known as the “small cabinet,” was authorized to make day-to-day decisions regarding the war while bringing broader policy decisions to the larger, statutory security cabinet.In response to a query by The Jerusalem Post, a spokesperson for the Prime Minister’s Office said that the security cabinet will now be convened at a higher frequency. In addition, Netanyahu will hold ad-hoc “security consultations” on specific matters when necessary.

The spokesperson did not answer a number of follow-up questions, including what the division of responsibilities will be between the security cabinet and these “consultations.”

Furthermore, the spokesperson did not address the statutory status of these consultations, such as whether they will be transcribed in an official protocol like the now-defunct war cabinet did. They also did not specify who would participate in these consultations.
The deliberations will likely serve two purposes: The first will be to avoid having to convene the security cabinet over minor decisions, and the second will be to keep sensitive information away from the far Right Ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich.

Both Ben-Gvir and Smotrich, who are both members of the security cabinet but were not appointed to the war cabinet, repeatedly criticized the latter since its founding for policies that they believed were not aggressive enough. In addition, many leaks emerged from the security cabinet during the months of the war, with Ben-Gvir believed to be the source of many of these.

Ben-Gvir, Smotrich's threats were felt

This led the prime minister to avoid including them in certain decisions or revealing specific information. For example, according to Ben-Gvir, Netanyahu refused to show him a draft of Israel’s latest proposal for a ceasefire and hostage deal with Hamas.
Still, according to MKs Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot of the National Unity Party, who, until recently, were members of the war cabinet, the presence of Ben-Gvir’s and Smotrich’s threats to leave the government over what they deemed were unacceptable concessions to Hamas, was felt tangibly in the room. Gantz and Eisenkot said that at one point, Netanyahu limited the mandate given to Israel’s negotiating team without updating them due to pressure from Smotrich.
Both Ben-Gvir and Smotrich demanded to be part of the war cabinet once Gantz and Eisenkot left the government last week.
However, instead of conceding to their requests, Netanyahu opted to dissolve the war cabinet completely.
Nevertheless, it is clear that Ben-Gvir and Smotrich will now enjoy even more influence over security decisions given that the security cabinet will convene more frequently.
In interviews with foreign media in recent months, Netanyahu repeatedly distanced himself from incendiary comments made by Ben-Gvir and Smotrich and members of their parties, such as calling for a “voluntary emigration” of Gaza’s population or building Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip.
Indeed, the prime minister repeatedly argued that all ministers were free to voice their opinions as they saw fit but that the decisions and policies were decided on only in the war cabinet. With the war cabinet now gone, the prime minister will likely find it more difficult to make this argument.
Perhaps more significantly, Israel made the same argument in the cases made against it in both the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court at the Hague. Because according to Israeli representatives, statements made by Ben-Gvir, Smotrich, and others were not indicative of official policy, since formal Israeli policies were decided upon within Israel’s war cabinet.
With the war cabinet gone, remarks by Ben-Gvir and Smotrich could carry more weight and may very possibly negatively affect the ongoing cases against Israel.