On November 5th, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced his dismissal of Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, citing a “crisis of trust” between the two leaders. Gallant, who served as defense minister since 2022, has not only acted as the representative voice of the Israeli military but was also one of the Prime Minister’s most prominent critics regarding the war in Gaza. Gallant’s replacement is former Foreign Minister Israel Katz, whose views closely align with Netanyahu’s. The timing of Gallant’s dismissal, coinciding with Donald Trump’s presidential win, has fueled speculation that Netanyahu is preparing to adopt more hardline policies. This move could undermine hostage negotiations and further escalate the conflict in the Middle East.
A Predictable Dismissal?
While the announcement was sudden, Gallant’s dismissal was the cumulation of a series of repeated clashes between him and Netanyahu. Gallant was originally fired in March 2023 after publicly opposing Netanyahu’s judicial overhaul plans, though public pressure quickly saw him reinstated. The two leaders clashed publicly again in May 2024, over what Israel’s administrative plans would be for Gaza after dismantling Hamas, with Gallant warning that Netanyahu’s lack of a “day after” plan could entangle Israel into a new occupation of Gaza.
In a televised statement, Gallant attributed his dismissal to three central disagreements: Netanyahu’s exemption of ultra-Orthodox Israelis from military conscription, Gallant’s push for a commission of inquiry into the governmental failures of October 7, and Gallant’s support for an immediate cease-fire deal aimed at freeing the current hostages in Gaza.
On November 4th (the day before his dismissal), Gallant approved the IDF issuance of 7000 additional draft orders to the Haredim, Israel’s ultra-orthodox community. The Haredim have been largely exempt from military service since the founding of Israel, on account of their devotion to religious study. In late July 2024, the Israeli Supreme Court sent out 1000 conscription notices in its first draft for Haredi men, causing outrage in the community. In March 2024, surveys from The Jewish People Policy Institute found that 81 per cent of Israelis favoured removing the exemption. Despite popular opinion, the two ultra-Orthodox parties, United Torah Judaism and Shas, are crucial backings of Netanyahu’s coalition. The need for ultra-orthodox votes to clear Israel’s 2025 budget is seen as another incentive for the Prime Minister to accept the blanket exception for Haredi youth.
The continued military presence in the Gaza strip has been another point of division between Netanyahu and Gallant since May. In a televised statement, Gallant argued that Israel’s military would have to make “painful concessions” in order to bring back the remaining hostages from Gaza. In late October, Hamas rejected a ceasefire proposal tied to a small hostage release for a 30-day cessation of fighting, insisting on the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza strip as a necessary condition – an outcome unlikely as Netanyahu continues to pledge for Hamas’ “complete destruction”.
Domestic Rifts
On November 6th, protests erupted in Jerusalem in immediate response to Gallant’s removal. In the streets of Tel Aviv and outside the Knesset, many protesters are calling for Netanyahu’s resignation. The absence of Gallant, a proponent of cease-fire talks, has sparked outcry among Israelis who have been frustrated with the Netanyahu government’s inability to secure a hostage deal. Out of the 251 hostages taken by Hamas on October 7, 2023, estimates say 97 hostages, including the bodies of 35, remain in captivity. Representatives of hostage families condemned Gallant’s dismissal, calling it a continuation of efforts to “torpedo” a release deal.
As the war drags on past its 13th month, public sentiment increasingly suggests that Netanyahu is prioritizing his political survival over the fate of the hostages. In September 2024, Hamas’s killing of six hostages, some of whom were subjects of a cease-fire talk, caused an outpouring of anger. Many blamed the deal’s failure on Netanyahu’s insistence to maintain control of the Philadelphi corridor, a ribbon of land along Gaza’s border with Egypt allowing Israel military control over the strip. Opposition leader Yair Lapid accused Netanyahu of refusing forfeiture of the corridor in order to placate far-right ministers in his government, who oppose any concessions.
Mairav Zonzein, an analyst with the International Crisis Group has said that Gallant represents a larger tension between Israel’s military and political echelons. The disagreement between Netanyahu and Gallant reflects a wider split between Israel’s right-wing governing coalition and the military. Since June, Netanyahu’s “total victory” pledge has put him at odds with the military leadership. The Jerusalem Post editorial staff expressed concern that Gallant’s departure could push a unified far-right voice within the coalition, driving an intensified military approach.
Strategic Implications
In recent months, escalated fighting between Israel, Hezbollah, and Iran has expanded the war beyond Gaza. With Israel’s ground operations in Lebanon, and retaliatory airstrikes against military targets in Iran, Gallant’s ousting holds heavy implications for the war’s future trajectory. The number of civilian deaths, particularly in the Gaza strip, has been the main impetus behind international calls for a cease-fire. Last month, the Biden Administration gave Israel a 30 day warning to improve Gaza’s humanitarian situation or face restricted U.S. military aid, a warning which was not implemented. However, with Donald Trump’s recent election victory, the threat of U.S sanctions appears subdued. Trump’s historically close alliance with Netanyahu suggests a shift towards greater U.S. leniency around Israeli policy, once he re-enters the Whitehouse in January 2025. Meanwhile, the deepening fractures in Israeli public opinion will continue to pose a critical challenge to Netanyahu’s government, leaving the path ahead unclear, domestically and for the war.
Edited by Andrea Pupovac
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and they do not reflect the position of the McGill Journal of Political Science or the Political Science Students’ Association.
Featured image by AP