It is difficult to speak in cynical terms of labeling winners and losers regarding the law to reduce the cause of reasonableness passed yesterday in the Knesset plenum, when it seems that the clash between parts of the public in the State of Israel is at its peak.
Nonetheless, there are a number of political insights that contributed to or hurt each of the players. Interestingly, summer's winners are a mirror image of winter's losers.
Prime Minister Netanyahu with Defense Minister Galant during the votes, photo: AP
Unlike the end of winter, when Defense Minister Galant came out with his upper hand when a large public fought against the decision to fire him and the reform was halted in favor of dialogue at the president's residence, now in the middle of the summer Galant has failed miserably in his attempts to reach a compromise on a variety of proposals.
Gallant didn't need to be heard, it was enough to look at his body language during the votes to understand his frustration, anger and dissatisfaction with what was happening. In a live broadcast, in front of the Knesset TV cameras and in front of journalists from the gallery, Galant spoke decisively, with angry hand gestures against Yariv Levin and Netanyahu, in an attempt to reach a last-minute compromise.
This time, military recruitment didn't help Gallant
The proposal on the table was to return the bill to committee to amend it so that it would only begin to apply from early 2024, during which time negotiations would take place with the opposition. The coalition's condition was that Lapid and Gantz would undertake not to submit reservations that would delay the passage of the law, with a delayed applicability, until the recess in a week. Galant shifted between Lapid, Gantz and Lapid again, trying to convince Levin that he stuck to his refusal – and in the end his efforts failed.
IDF Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Galant, Photo: Kobi Gideon/GPO
Even on the day preceding the vote, the defense minister recruited the best IDF officers for the struggle, which he probably sees as a war for the integrity of the IDF and to prevent harm to state security. The chief of staff spoke with ministers and opposition members about the security situation in light of the refusal in the reserves. The head of the operations division, the head of Military Intelligence and the head of the Shin Bet were also partners in the effort, some out of fear and personal desire. Finally, despite efforts, the minister and the generals failed.
The Great Winners - Levin and Rotman
The one who actually came out on top this time was Justice Minister Yariv Levin. The struggle between Levin and Galant is not from yesterday, it began already during the coalition negotiations. At the time, Levin backed Smotrich in assuming authority in the Defense Ministry, tensions over the reform increased, and at the end of the day, Levin was the one who was defeated by Galant at the end of winter, when Netanyahu froze the legislation.
This time it was reversed. Levin and Simcha Rothman are the big political winners of the event. During the negotiations with Lapid, the president's residence, the academics, and other mediators, Levin and Rotman – who were armed with Smotrich and Ben-Gvir – managed to prevent a lengthy legislative freeze that would likely have led to the High Court of Justice requiring Levin to convene the Judicial Selection Committee in its current format, a move he considers a red line.
An achievement for the "right base"
Levin's body language during the vote also showed no ease. He became angry and waved his hands, rebuffing the attempt by Galant, the president's house, and even at times Smotrich to soften the law or introduce a delayed last-minute applicability. Levin was joined by Ben-Gvir, who was unwilling to hear about any last-minute compromise.
Yariv Levin and Simcha Rothman. Relying on statements by Justice Sohlberg, photo: Oren Ben Hakon
And what about Netanyahu? He came out of the event tooth and eye. On the one hand, he was unable to overcome his coalition partners to achieve a compromise with the opposition as he had hoped, although he himself was willing to make more extensive concessions during the freeze in order to buy public quiet. On the other hand, the prime minister succeeded in bringing a right-wing achievement to the base, while conveying a determined message in the face of the phenomenon of rejectionism, which he was not willing to capitulate to. Those close to him say: Unlike the winter, this time there was no stage in the negotiations where Netanyahu even thought not to legislate a certain version of reasonableness by the end of the week.
Victory in battle, not battle
In the opposition, too, a revolution has been made. Gantz, who was the father of compromises and negotiations in the previous round, an image that helped him reap seats in the polls, is ending the current round as the opposition's entrenched figure, joining the veteran compromise refuseniks Michaeli and Lieberman.
Lieberman, Gantz and Lapid (archive). Even in the opposition, there are those who come out of the event stronger than they entered, Photo: Yossi Zeliger
Now Lapid, who was portrayed as someone the Likud said "no agreement can be reached with," is the compromising figure of the summer, and perhaps the opposition's biggest beneficiary. After Gantz presented an outline that was unacceptable to the coalition, Yesh Atid decided to go a long way and agreed to a compromise on reasonableness, in exchange for a one-year postponement of the rest of the reform.
Lapid may have been kidnapped by opponents of the reform, but in the end the talks exploded and did not force him to pay the price of a compromise with Netanyahu, while he won the image of the "responsible adult," a trait that has great electoral value these days.
Of course, this is a victory in the battle, not a campaign. The winners may be temporary, because the stubborn battle over reasonableness has taken the wind out of the sails of parts of the coalition regarding the continuation of judicial reform legislation, and it is believed that the Judicial Selection Committee will no longer be promoted unilaterally.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us