Follow us on social

Shutterstock_1660566379-scaled

Gantz agrees to join Netanyahu in unity government — what does it mean?

Gantz didn’t have the extra motivation to carry on the fight that Netanyahu does of using the prime minister's position to avoid a criminal trial and, very likely, a prison sentence.

Analysis | Middle East

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu couldn’t have scripted a better ending to Israel’s year-long election saga. Benny Gantz, the head of the rival Blue and White coalition, was going to have the opportunity to form a new government, then he suddenly reversed himself and agreed to a unity government with Netanyahu. 

Why did Gantz cave in —  especially at that moment? Some have suggested it was Gantz's way of getting out of the race, as he had been playing the electoral game for well over a year and was simply exhausted. He competed half-heartedly from the start, and it was clear that he did not have the same energy and drive for the game of electoral politics as Netanyahu. This was the most difficult election cycle in Israeli history, and it was more than Gantz signed up for. He didn’t have the extra motivation Netanyahu does of using the prime minister’s position to avoid a criminal trial and, very likely, a prison sentence.

Also unlike Netanyahu, Gantz is a patriot. His lack of enthusiasm for politics was genuine, but so was his motivation to finally unseat Netanyahu and to end his reign of corruption. The coronavirus crisis changed the calculus, and made it imperative in Gantz’s view to form a “government of national unity” that could get up and running quickly and address the pandemic, while also maintaining oversight of the extreme measures that Netanyahu was trying to ram through with virtually no restraint. One can question Gantz’s judgment, but few doubt that he genuinely believed, as the Israeli journalist Gideon Levy put it: “Of the two possibilities before him – a continuation of the deadlock and another election, or joining a Netanyahu government – MK Benny Gantz… (chose) …the lesser evil.”

The unity agreement that has been discussed publicly would give Gantz’s party many of the most important government portfolios, including the defense andforeign ministries. The key to the agreement is the justice ministry, which Gantz will apparently get as well. That means that it would be much harder for Netanyahu to take power away from the judiciary, something the Likud has been working toward for many years, and would also have less leverage to change laws and government procedures in order to continue to evade accountability for his crimes. Netanyahu, of course, understands this, and his price has been Gantz’s willingness to back a law that would allow Netanyahu to continue serving as a minister in government while under indictment. The current law requires the prime minister to fire any minister who is indicted, which is why, the proposed law reasons, the prime minister is an exception to that law.

Gantz is almost certainly committing political suicide with this move. The Blue and White coalition he headed has split, with Gantz’s Israeli Resilience party set to join Netanyahu, while Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid and Moshe Ya’alon’s Telem parties will be in the opposition. 

As much as Gantz objected to Netanyahu’s corruption, he doesn’t have the personal animosity towards the prime minister that his former partners in Blue and White do. The loathing Lapid and Ya’alon have for Netanyahu—as well as that of the right wing leader, Avigdor Lieberman, whose refusal to join a Netanyahu-led coalition prevented  Netanyahu from forming amajority coalition in three rounds of voting—is now something Gantz will have to face as well. 

Despite the criticism he faces for it, Gantz can excuse violating his campaign pledge that he would never join a Netanyahu-led coalition by pointing out that he could not have predicted the coronavirus. Still, his erstwhile political allies were not alone in condemning his decision. Many Israelis criticized Gantz sharply over social media

For many progressive Israelis, especially Arab citizens, Gantz’s decision was motivated by something more basic than exhaustion: bigotry. Gantz had only one way to form a government without Netanyahu and the right-wing and religious parties loyal to him. But it required the support of the Joint List, a coalition of four parties which represent most of Israel’s Palestinian citizens. In the end, that was something Gantz couldn’t stomach.

As the Israeli journalist Hagai Mattar put it, “If there is one thing we can learn from the last election cycle, it is that Gantz prefers to enter into a coalition with a corrupt prime minister over working alongside Palestinians. He prefers to dismantle the political project he has led over the past three election campaigns — one devoid of any cohesive political agenda apart from getting rid of Netanyahu — in favor of joining the prime minister under the banner of working with ‘anyone but the Arabs.’”

Under the proposed agreement for a unity government, Gantz is supposed to take over as prime minister in eighteen months. No matter how naïve Gantz might be, he could not possibly be so foolish as to believe that Netanyahu will simply step aside gracefully in a year and a half, or that he will not, in the intervening months, do everything he can to destroy the unity agreement and buy himself even more time outside of prison. Yet, Gantz found this preferable to establishing a government with the support of “the Arabs.”

In terms of policy, there really isn’t very much difference between Gantz and Netanyahu. Indeed, the Blue and White coalition was, from the first, based on a strategy to oust the corrupt incumbent, not on ideological differences with him. Lapid and Ya’alon—neither of whom holds what anyone would consider a progressive attitude toward Palestinians—remained committed to that unifying principle, and were willing to stick with it as was the notoriously xenophobic Lieberman. 

We shouldn’t read too much into that. For many, probably most, Israelis who accepted the idea of a government supported by the Joint List, it was a pragmatic, if unpleasant, way to get rid of Netanyahu. But the idea of the Joint List participating in actual governance remains a non-starter for most Jewish Israelis. 

Still, Jewish support for the Joint List rose significantly in this election. Now that the Labor party has sealed its death warrant by following Gantz into the government (with far less reason to do so than Gantz had), the only left-wing Zionist party, the Meretz party, should develop its natural alliance with the Joint List to bring a progressive voice back into Israeli politics. That won’t be an easy path. Many obstacles, beyond the mainstream Israeli opposition to such unity, stand in the way. But it may be the only hope for a viable alternative to the Israeli Right.

Whether such an Arab-Jewish progressive alliance will arise is unsure, but, as Israeli political analyst and pollster Dahlia Scheindlin put it, regarding increased Jewish-Arab work to create partnerships, “Perhaps these efforts are filling a void left by the defunct peace process with the Palestinians. Perhaps (Israeli Jewish leftists) have concluded that Jewish-Arab partnership can eventually advance equality and self-determination for Palestinians under occupation as well. The Joint List’s vision and political decisions stood for both. The party is paving a new road, one where the journey of Palestinian and Jewish citizens may one day converge.”


Photo credit: gali estrange / Shutterstock.com
Analysis | Middle East
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.