National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, nothing if not a skilled political operator, took a page from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s playbook by quitting the government Sunday morning just before the implementation of a gut-wrenching decision dealing with Gaza.
Netanyahu, a master politician, served in Ariel Sharon’s government as finance minister in 2005 and quit Sharon’s government on August 7, just days before the IDF began its withdrawal from the coastal strip.
He explained his move to the country in a press conference, saying, “Gaza is becoming a base for Islamic terror. Everyone sees this. Hamas is getting stronger and taking credit for what looks like our running away under fire.”
Beyond the similar rhetoric – Ben-Gvir called the current deal a surrender to Hamas – there are striking similarities along with some important differences in these steps.
The most striking similarity is that neither move was taken to actually stop the policy – because neither Netanyahu then nor Ben-Gvir today – had the votes to do that, but rather to build up political capital for the future.
Government resignations
It is worth noting that both resignations were driven by opposition to Gaza-related decisions. Netanyahu resigned over Sharon’s Disengagement plan from Gaza, warning this would create a “base of terror” within easy rocket range of Ashkelon.
Similarly, Ben-Gvir resigned his ministerial post, along with two other Otzma Yehudit ministers on Sunday, and pulled his faction out of the Knesset in protest of the hostage deal and ceasefire, saying this would unravel all the gains made so far in the Gaza war.
Both resignations occurred just before or immediately after the policies were ratified – Netanyahu’s just before a cabinet vote on Disengagement, and Ben-Gvir’s after the cabinet voted to endorse the hostage agreement.
Moreover, both moves aligned the resigning minister with right-wing opposition to the policies in question, strengthening their position among right-wing voters.
Netanyahu used this vote to position himself as the leader of the right-wing base that viewed the withdrawal as a betrayal of Israeli security and the settlers who were being uprooted. This resonated with the Likud rank-and-file, something that helped pave his way back to the prime minister’s office in 2009.
Although Netanyahu had previously voted in favor of the Disengagement plan on several occasions, his resignation allowed him to portray his stance as principled, casting himself as a leader willing to act decisively on what he believed.
This maneuver solidified Netanyahu’s position as the defender of right-wing values, enabling his political comeback.
Ben-Gvir is eyeing a similar dynamic, though on a smaller scale. He doesn’t have realistic ambitions to become prime minister, but he does hope to peel away voters from the Religious Zionist Party, Likud, and even Shas and become stronger in the next Knesset.
Netanyahu knew his resignation would not stop the withdrawal from Gaza – just as Ben-Gvir knows he doesn’t have the seats to block the current deal. But it does place Ben-Gvir in a stronger position with the hard right wing, providing a plank he can run on in the next elections – whether they are held as scheduled in October 2026 or much earlier.
Just as Netanyahu’s resignation did not immediately topple the government, neither will Ben-Gvir’s or his party’s decision to leave the government do it either.
What it does do, however, is create greater instability inside the coalition.
While Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid and National Unity’s Benny Gantz have said they will give the government a safety net regarding this issue – meaning they will vote for the government on matters relating to the hostage release or ceasefire – that same safety net does not extend to all issues until the next elections.
The coalition majority has now been whittled down from 68-52 to 62-58. On sensitive issues such as haredi (ultra-Orthodox) conscription, where the coalition previously could absorb three or four dissenting Likud votes, losing them now could very well bring down the government. While Otzma Yehudit may still support the coalition selectively on certain issues, the government’s room for maneuver has shrunk significantly.
The result is a far more precarious coalition – not a toppled one, but one walking a much thinner line.
Now the differences:
First, prior to his resignation, Netanyahu voted in favor of the Disengagement on several occasions. Ben-Gvir, by contrast, has been consistent in his opposition to the current ceasefire and hostage deal.
Another difference is that Netanyahu resigned alone and did not take his party out of the coalition. That’s not the case here, where Ben-Gvir is leaving with other members of his party.
Both exits destabilized coalitions but did not immediately bring down the government. Netanyahu’s resignation positioned him for a leadership challenge of Sharon inside Likud, which led Sharon to leave the party and start a new one: Kadima. Ben-Gvir doesn’t have plans to challenge Netanyahu for leadership, but he is eyeing ways to strengthen his position in the next Knesset – and taking the position against the deal, he believes, will add to his Knesset list at the next elections.
Ben-Gvir’s resignation, like that of Netanyahu, follows a pattern where resigning on principle becomes a tool for greater power in the future rather than an effort to shift immediate policy. While Netanyahu may be annoyed by Ben-Gvir’s gambit, he can’t be too upset: after all, he did something very similar 20 years ago.