Will Netanyahu Clip the Wings of His New Cabinet Hawks?

Newly sworn-in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (R) chairs the first cabinet meeting of his new government in Jerusalem, on December 29, 2022. (AFP)
Newly sworn-in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (R) chairs the first cabinet meeting of his new government in Jerusalem, on December 29, 2022. (AFP)
TT
20

Will Netanyahu Clip the Wings of His New Cabinet Hawks?

Newly sworn-in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (R) chairs the first cabinet meeting of his new government in Jerusalem, on December 29, 2022. (AFP)
Newly sworn-in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (R) chairs the first cabinet meeting of his new government in Jerusalem, on December 29, 2022. (AFP)

One is a pistol-packing ex-member of an outlawed Jewish militant group. The other is a religious fundamentalist. Both are West Bank settlers averse to Palestinians' self-rule - let alone their hopes of statehood.

And as senior coalition partners to reelected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich will be within reach of the levers of power - a troubling prospect for Israel's once-dominant secular-left and friends in the West.

Netanyahu turned to the ultra-nationalists after centrist parties boycotted him over his long-running corruption trial. He needs their support to stay in office as he argues his innocence in court. But he denies this spells pliability to their demands.

"I will navigate this government. The other parties are joining me. I'm not joining them," Netanyahu told Al Arabiya on Dec. 15, pledging to enforce "liberal rightist" policymaking.

Besides, he said, "a lot of them have changed and moderated their views, principally because with the assumption of power comes responsibility".

There may be precedent in Avigdor Lieberman, a firebrand whose 2006 appointment as deputy prime minister triggered much the same response as Ben-Gvir's rise: liberal warnings of civil war and, on Israel's top TV satire, his lampooning as a Nazi.

Lieberman proved to be politically adaptable. He served in various coalitions - one of which included an Islamist party - and ended up in the current opposition, from which he has scorned Netanyahu's new allies as "zealots and extremists".

Still, Lieberman could also play spoiler from the right. As Netanyahu's foreign minister in a previous government, he would publicly promote a harder line on the Palestinians than the premier's. In a later term, Lieberman resigned as Netanyahu's defense minister in protest at a Gaza truce he deemed too lax.

Netanyahu's conservative Likud party has now retained the defense and foreign ministries. But the optics around Ben-Gvir and Smotrich may yet prove combustible for him - for example, if either man visits or prays at Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa mosque compound, an icon of Palestinian nationalism which is also the holiest site for Judaism as vestige of its two ancient temples.

Netanyahu's previous 15 years as premier saw him feathering the nests of the hawks in his cabinet - or clipping their wings - as he deemed necessary. Back then, however, he had parties to his left to help him function as an ideological fulcrum.

"With all the parties in the incoming government situated to Netanyahu's right, it will be difficult for him to replicate that role this time," argued Yohanan Plesner, president of the Israel Democracy Institute think-tank. "Does he want to?"

Pacing themselves

On Ben-Gvir's and Smotrich's calls for West Bank annexations, Netanyahu is on record as being in favor while also avoiding action on the ground that would risk escalating into confrontations with Washington or Arab partners.

Yet Smotrich did carve out a cabinet niche for himself overseeing settlements, which most world powers deem illegal for taking occupied land that Palestinians want for a state.

"He can be effective in multiplying and consolidating Israel's presence in the West Bank," said Amotz Asa-El, research fellow at the Shalom Hartman Institute, noting Smotrich's high pace of infrastructure-building as a former transport minister.

For Ben-Gvir, by contrast, this is the first stint in government. As police minister, he will focus on law-and-order issues important to a swathe of Israelis, Asa-El predicted - including crime-hit Arabs against whom Ben-Gvir once agitated.

"After legitimating his position in broader Israeli circles, he will proceed to the realms that not all agree on - namely the West Bank," Asa-El said. But that may have to wait, as Ben-Gvir's portfolio does not grant major powers in the West Bank, which is under the overall control of the military.

Arguably, Ben-Gvir, 46, and Smotrich, 42, can afford to shelve some of their agendas for this round with Netanyahu, 73.

"But that's counting on restraint from people who come from very different ideological world-views than what we've seen in Israeli governments before," said Daniel Shapiro, a former US envoy to Israel and now Atlantic Council distinguished fellow.

Ben-Gvir came up through the Kahane Chai group, which is blacklisted in Israel and the United States for its virulently anti-Arab doctrines. Smotrich's advocacy of Jewish claims on the West Bank is informed by a doctrinaire faith in Bible prophesy.

Earlier generations of Israeli far-rightists in government "demonstrated an interest and capacity to engage in a genuine two-way dialogue with the United States and other international players, and seemed to recognize the limits on pursuing some of their most ideological positions," Shapiro said.

"It remains to be seen whether that approach will characterize members of the incoming coalition."

Alan Dershowitz, a prominent American-Jewish jurist who has advised US and Israeli leaders, said Ben-Gvir and Smotrich disavowed racism and homophobia in meetings with him this month.

"The word 'balance' came up a number of times" in their reassurances during the conversations, Dershowitz told Reuters.

"Obviously they were in some ways trying to get me to have a positive impression of them," he said. "Let's see what happens when I'm not in the room and the people in the room are pushing them to become more extreme. That's the litmus test."



Conflicting Visions for Gaza’s ‘Day After’ Amid a Complex Reality

Palestinians bid farewell to a relative killed in an Israeli airstrike outside the Indonesian Hospital in Beit Lahia, northern Gaza Strip, on Saturday (AFP)
Palestinians bid farewell to a relative killed in an Israeli airstrike outside the Indonesian Hospital in Beit Lahia, northern Gaza Strip, on Saturday (AFP)
TT
20

Conflicting Visions for Gaza’s ‘Day After’ Amid a Complex Reality

Palestinians bid farewell to a relative killed in an Israeli airstrike outside the Indonesian Hospital in Beit Lahia, northern Gaza Strip, on Saturday (AFP)
Palestinians bid farewell to a relative killed in an Israeli airstrike outside the Indonesian Hospital in Beit Lahia, northern Gaza Strip, on Saturday (AFP)

As discussions over the future of Gaza continue, the conflicting visions among key players make reaching a consensus increasingly difficult. The phrase “it’s complicated,” used by US envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff to justify Israel’s continuation of the war, summarizes the deep divisions among stakeholders.

Since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, followed by Israel’s devastating war on Gaza, international efforts to define the “day after” scenario have remained unresolved.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refuses to allow either the Palestinian Authority (PA) or Hamas to govern Gaza. Meanwhile, former US President Donald Trump envisions turning Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East”—without the PA, Hamas, or even Palestinians themselves. Arab states are considering an independent committee to manage Gaza, while the PA insists on taking sole control. Hamas, on the other hand, has proposed a support committee to oversee governance. The result is a landscape where no party shares a unified vision for post-war Gaza.

A senior Palestinian official emphasized that the PA and Arab states are relying on the US to take a firm stance and impose a solution on Israel. “There is no agreement yet. The issue must still be settled,” he told Asharq Al-Awsat. The official stressed that a binding US position, along with Arab and international support, is necessary for any effective governance plan.

While Trump and Netanyahu have outlined different visions for Gaza, behind the scenes, the US is engaged in discussions about post-war governance. Yet, Netanyahu has repeatedly avoided addressing this issue, preferring to focus on military operations. Israeli writer Avi Shilon argued in Yedioth Ahronoth that Netanyahu is prolonging the war to evade making a tough decision about Gaza’s future.

Both Witkoff and Shilon believe Hamas intends to maintain its presence in Gaza. While Witkoff insists that Hamas’ continued rule is unacceptable to Trump’s administration, he hinted that the group could participate politically if it disarms.

Witkoff also suggested that negotiations might provide a path forward, arguing that Hamas is not as ideologically rigid as some claim.

This approach aligns with US efforts to engage Hamas indirectly, recognizing that Israel has been unable to decisively eliminate the group. Shilon noted that Israel’s demand to end Hamas’ rule is justified in principle but impractical in reality.

“Israel cannot force Hamas to surrender. A group willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of its people and endure Gaza’s destruction has no incentive to return hostages if all we offer is their removal from power,” he wrote, adding that the US has come to the same realization.

Hamas responded swiftly to Witkoff’s remarks, with spokesperson Abdel Latif al-Qanoua stating that some of these proposals are under discussion with mediators. He affirmed that Hamas is open to governance arrangements in Gaza, provided they have broad consensus. “We approved the formation of a societal support committee in Gaza that does not include Hamas. We have no ambitions to govern Gaza; what matters to us is national consensus, and we are committed to its outcomes,” he said.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdel Aty previously outlined a comprehensive reconstruction plan for Gaza, including training Palestinian security forces in Egypt and Jordan before their deployment to the Strip. A Hamas official confirmed to Asharq Al-Awsat that the group genuinely does not seek to govern Gaza, but it insists that governance arrangements be Palestinian-led, without US or Israeli dictates. “Our weapons are not up for discussion unless it leads to a Palestinian state,” the official emphasized.

The PA and Fatah have also entered the debate, calling on Hamas to relinquish control of Gaza. Fatah spokesperson Munther al-Hayek urged Hamas to step aside, warning that the upcoming period could be “even more severe” for Gaza’s civilians.

A lingering question remains: Will the October 7 attack ultimately bring Palestinians closer to statehood, or will it destroy their aspirations?

Thirty-two years after the Oslo Accords—when US sponsorship, international backing, and a strong PA seemed to pave the way for peace—Israel’s refusal to conclude negotiations has kept Palestinians in a cycle of talks, conflicts, and political paralysis. Over time, Israel’s approach has weakened the PA and, whether intentionally or not, bolstered Hamas’ influence—leading to the devastating events of October 7.

As the region contemplates Gaza’s future, the unresolved question remains: What lessons have Washington and Tel Aviv learned, and what do they truly want?