National Unity
What to make of Gadi Eisenkot's Public Criticism of Israel's Government
I’ve made a point of staying out of Israel’s internal politics while the war is under way. I’ve felt strongly that Canadian Zionists should focus on rallying around the state while it is under military attack on at least three fronts, and facing a wave of organized vilification from its enemies in multiple institutions abroad. However, there is now open dissent coming from within Israel’s emergency government and I think it’s important to talk about it.
Israel’s war cabinet consists of five people, three members and two observers. The voting members are Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and National Unity leader Benny Gantz. The observers are Ron Dermer, a close associate of the Prime Minister, and Gadi Eisenkot, a former IDF Chief of Staff and a founding member the National Unity party.
When the National Unity party joined Israel’s emergency government on October 11, it was agreed to suspend all legislation that was unrelated to the present war, including the controversial judicial overhaul. Leader of the opposition Benny Gantz is quoted in the article linked just above saying that, “all internal disagreements needed to be set aside to project a unified front to Israel’s enemies, as well as offer confidence in the leadership to soldiers fighting on the battlefield and to a public devastated by the Hamas onslaught and the failure to predict and prevent it.” Adding two former IDF Chiefs of Staff to the war cabinet ensured that a wealth of military experience was at the table as Israel conducted the war.
Gadi Eisenkot was Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces from 2015 to 2019. During his military career he served in the IDF Golani Brigade during the Lebanon war of 1985 to 2000 and became Golani Commander from 1997 to 1998. He served as Military Secretary to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense during the Ehud Barak government of 1999 to 2001. He joined with Benny Gantz and Gideon Saar to form the National Unity faction before Israel’s most recent election in 2022. National Unity was the official opposition until they joined the emergency government on October 7.
Image: Minister without Portfolio Gadi Eisenkot;
By Mark Neyman / Government Press Office of Israel, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=121726023
On Thursday, January 18, Eisenkot appeared to abandon the project of projecting unity as he publicly criticized the stated policies of the government in which he serves. He called the stated goal of completely removing Hamas “unrealistic” and called for new elections “within months, to restore public trust in the government.” His remarks appeared to be a response to an interview earlier the same day, in which the Prime Minister said that the war would continue into 2025 and that elections should not be held during the war. In the article linked just above, Eisenkot is quoted as saying “Today, the situation already in the Gaza Strip is that the goals of the war have not yet been achieved, but the war is already not happening. There is a reduced troop deployment, a different modus operandi.” In other words, what is happening on the ground does not match the rhetoric that the Prime Minister used in his earlier interview.
According to today’s Times of Israel Daily Briefing, weekly post-Shabbat demonstrations against the Prime Minister resumed in many Israeli cities last night, calling for the government to set a date for elections and for some kind of deal to stop the fighting and free the hostages.
This article in the Jerusalem Post published on Friday and headlined “Israel's emergency government close to collapse as Gaza war continues” analyzes the political considerations driving the Prime Minister and the leaders of the National Unity faction. According to the article, PM Netanyahu has kept details of the changing strategy in Gaza from the other members of the government as he tries to maintain support from the right wing parties that were essential to his coalition before October 7, and to manage pressure from the Biden Administration to reduce the intensity of Israeli operations in Gaza.
At the same time, the Biden administration is coming under criticism for its limited response to Iranian sponsored provocations in the Red Sea, as well as in Iraq, and its failure to deter Hezbollah from attacking Israel with increasing intensity from Lebanon. The US administration is under political pressure from the left wing of the Democratic party and spokespeople for the Arab community in the United States. Some commentators I’ve heard in recent days are saying that the administration is tying its own hands in taking effective action, because it remains committed to a delusional aim of securing some kind of entente with the Iranian regime.
Another sharp disagreement between Israel’s PM and the Biden Administration has broken into the open this weekend over the declared American objective of a “path toward a Palestinian State.” This is part of an ongoing American effort to secure a broad security agreement with the Saudis which would include Saudi recognition of Israel.
The prospect of Saudi recognition and normalization with Israel and a vision of close security ties between the Saudis and Israel under an American umbrella seems like it would be a big achievement that would be worth paying a price for. But the idea of a Palestinian state seems fraught with peril, given the long history of treachery by the Palestinian leadership. Confidence in America’s own reliability has also been shaken in the wake of the abandonment and subsequent collapse of the western backed regime in Afghanistan.
It is not just PM Netanyahu, but Israel itself that seems caught in a bind by the contradictory pressures coming from the Americans. Perhaps an election and a new government would strengthen Israel’s hand by strengthening the mandate and the legitimacy of whoever emerges from the election in a position of Israeli leadership.
But the prospect of a change of Israeli leadership does not address the immediate issues of how to pursue the war; whether the objective of removing Hamas can be achieved by force or by diplomacy, and whether to pause the fighting in order to free the remaining hostages. This also doesn’t address the problem in the near term of how to restore security to Israel’s border regions and deter Israel’s enemies from further attacks.
While Israel’s leaders wrestle with these dilemmas, and whatever leadership emerges in Israel in the coming months, Canadian Zionists will continue to support the state and people of Israel in these struggles. Those struggles seem likely to continue both on the battlefield and in the arena of public relations. It is more important than ever to offer resistance to those who want to demonize Israel. As we have seen since the beginning of the war, that demonization is an effort to justify the mass murder of Israelis and pave the way for a new Shoah. On that issue there can be no compromise.
Preparations for our upcoming month in Israel continue and we’ve identified opportunites to volunteer in the communities of the Gaza envelope. I’m looking forward to heading for Israel in nine days time.
I’m very pleased to welcome the many new free subscribers who have joined us in the past week. Thank you for reading. Please consider supporting our mission by upgrading to paid.
Many thanks to the new paid subscribers who have joined this week. I am so grateful for your support. If you are a paid subscriber you can leave a comment.
One of the many features of Israeli governments that I, as a Canadian oleh, find strange is the lack of unity within government coalitions. It’s not unusual here to have Cabinet Ministers and others publicly criticize government actions, including key and/or sensitive decisions. Imagine if this had happened in the governments of Prime Ministers Chretien or Harper, two very strong and determined leaders. The offenders would have quickly found themselves dismissed, not only from the government but perhaps also from their respective parties. Here in Israel, where no party has ever won a majority of seats, coalition building (often including parties with extreme views and members with obnoxious personalities) necessarily requires toleration of such dissent, with negative fallout domestically and even internationally.
thank you - I always learn so much when I read your articles. You clarified a great deal.