A few weeks ago, one could have spoken of a “potential” explosion between Defense Minister Yoav Gallant (Likud) and IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Herzi Halevi on one side, versus Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich (Religious Zionist Party) and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir (Otzma Yehudit) on the other.
That is no longer the case. It is no longer “potential,” but an open – and very public – political war.
It started when Gallant overrode Smotrich’s authority, ordering the evacuation of a new outpost in Samaria on January 20, weeks after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government came into power.
At the time, it seemed to spark an urgent coalition crisis for Netanyahu. Until now, oversight regarding settler and Palestinian construction in Area C of the West Bank was within the purview of the defense minister.
Under the government’s coalition agreements, however, Smotrich was promised a new, undefined authority over the area, including being a minister inside the ministry itself.
Gallant ordered the evacuation over Smotrich’s objections – all of which came just one day after US National Security Council Advisor Jake Sullivan visited Jerusalem and Ramallah.
The crisis was temporarily averted when Netanyahu reaffirmed his general support for existing settlements, while insisting that any new building activities must be done legally and with full coordination with both the Prime Minister’s Office and the security establishment. That is not what happened with that first evacuation.
“Every action on the ground must be conducted in accordance with the law and a relevant security situation assessment,” Gallant said at the time, according to the Defense Ministry.
That incident presented a united Netanyahu/Gallant/IDF front.
History repeats itself with broader implications
This past Sunday, a similar incident of demolishing a newly built outpost took place, but the clashes that occurred then could have much broader implications.
Right-wing MKs and settler activists threatened the government’s stability after clashes broke out between Border Police and protesters as an olive grove run by settlers near the settlement of Shiloh was uprooted.
The demolition was the third evacuation order carried out under Netanyahu, but was part of a long legal fight by the settlers to hold onto the area.
The demolished olive grove is similar to a large number of existing land disputes – which means that Netanyahu could not downplay the issue as a fluke from new activities that were not approved by him. The presence of MKs and a large group of protesters, who were at times handled roughly by Border Police, added to the controversy.
Smotrich said it was a deep violation of a coalition deal contingent upon him being able to protect and enhance existing settlements.
Ben-Gvir condemned the violation of the coalition deal, arguing that the IDF and Gallant used Border Police officers to carry out the demolition against his orders as national security minister.
Government officials told The Jerusalem Post that Smotrich was acting in a political manner, trying to hurt Gallant against a backdrop of the complex balance between their authorities. This is despite the fact that the High Court of Justice ordered the olive grove to be demolished a year ago.
This time, though, Netanyahu did not clearly back the IDF and Gallant. Instead, he remained mostly quiet, issuing an order toward the end of the operation to halt the demolition, when just a small amount of the grove was still standing.
In a recent briefing to military reporters, opposition leader Yair Lapid predicted that Netanyahu would soon turn on Gallant and the IDF and let them take the brunt of Smotrich’s and Ben-Gvir’s criticisms – while privately supporting specific demolitions.
Where does Gallant stand in this conflict?
From Gallant’s perspective, there is no argument here; any outpost or olive grove built illegally can be demolished, especially when ordered by the High Court.
Gallant’s position is pro-settlements that have been legalized, and he would probably vote to legalize more outposts. But he is far more concerned about maintaining stable security in the West Bank, and about relations and military aid from the US.
Moreover, all of this is somewhat small beans for Gallant, whose true focus is Iran.
Had he been appointed IDF chief in 2011 instead of Benny Gantz, he likely thinks, the whole story with Iran might have gone differently.
Now it is his time to shine and shape policy, and he is not interested in a small outpost or olive grove here or there disrupting the big picture: US support for Israel taking a tough approach toward the Islamic Republic.
Gallant does not view Smotrich or Ben-Gvir as equals, but as upstarts who do not understand the true stakes.
And Netanyahu? He probably feels similarly, but might try to stay out of the line of fire and let Gallant and the IDF take the heat. All of this does not mean that Gallant is insensitive to politics.
Whereas Gantz, as defense minister just a few months ago, publicly condemned IDF troops for illegally beating a West Bank activist in Hebron, Gallant remained silent when a similar incident happened this week. This left the IDF without political backing when Ben-Gvir criticized the top echelons for prosecuting the soldier for beating a Palestinian activist.
The question is whether Gallant will hold the IDF line and move further into the paradigm of former Likud defense minister Moshe Ya’alon, who eventually fell out with Netanyahu over a variety of issues in which Ya’alon defended the IDF more vigorously than Netanyahu did.
Ben-Gvir or Smotrich could leave the government or adopt a different unexpected move that would reshuffle the entire deck of cards.
But the Gallant/IDF/Smotrich/Ben-Gvir fault line is only going to continue to destabilize, and will eventually shatter.