Israel’s governing Likud party has entered one of its most unsettled internal periods in recent years. Two major reforms, the military draft bill and a sweeping overhaul of broadcasting regulation, have exposed disagreements reaching far beyond procedural detail. What began as committee-level friction has widened into a broader struggle over authority, identity, and the limits of internal discipline within the movement that has shaped Israel’s politics for nearly two decades.
For more stories from The Media Line go to themedialine.org
These tensions come shortly after Likud completed its internal primaries ahead of the 2026 elections. Instead of clarifying alliances, the results reflected a party adjusting to shifting internal power centers. Lawmakers now find themselves navigating disputes involving governance, credibility, and political direction.
The sharpest confrontation emerged when the Knesset approved a special committee to advance the broadcasting bill, removing the legislation from the Economy Committee. During the session that approved the move, Likud lawmaker David Bitan, who chairs that committee, delivered a long and unusually direct objection.
Bitan warned that the decision represented “a serious erosion of the Knesset’s authority,” adding that the government “cannot accuse the Supreme Court of overreach while doing the same to the legislature.” He argued that the coalition sought “a more convenient committee chair” and insisted the bill “belongs in the Economy Committee,” both by subject matter and according to the legislation’s own explanatory notes. Bitan also criticized what he described as external ideological influence on the draft, saying the proposed direction “does not represent Likud’s path.”
His intervention triggered a rare and open intra-party backlash. Member of Knesset (MK) Tally Gotliv told The Media Line that Bitan’s stance reflected a departure from Likud’s fundamental mission. “There are members of the coalition who lose their way at times,” she said. “They need to be reminded of their purpose, their path, and their values.” She added that some internal criticism voiced by colleagues “falls into patterns that contradict what Likud represents,” an unmistakable reference to Bitan’s confrontation over the broadcasting reform.
MK Moshe Passal told The Media Line that Bitan’s approach signaled an outdated instinct. “There is an effort to use shortcuts,” he said. “It will not work,” Passal argued that attempts to stall or dilute major reforms through procedural pressure weaken the coalition’s ability to govern. He said some lawmakers are “trying to round corners” in ways that will not withstand scrutiny and insisted that the public expects serious and transparent legislation rather than internal obstruction.
Likud lawmaker Galit Distel Atbaryan to lead special committee
Even with Bitan’s objections on the record, the Knesset moved forward. The special committee received final approval, and Likud lawmaker Galit Distel Atbaryan was selected to lead it. Communications Minister Shlomo Karhi has argued that the broadcasting system needs an overhaul and says the work can no longer be delayed. His plan reshapes regulatory structures, shifts oversight of audience-rating data, and changes the status of the public broadcaster. Opponents warn that the coalition’s handling of the initiative may weaken the Knesset’s usual checks.
At the same time, another dispute has emerged over the military draft bill. During the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee’s first detailed discussion, senior lawmakers from Likud and from Religious Zionism said they could not support the proposal as written.
MK Dan Illouz told The Media Line that weakening the mechanisms that have driven rising enlistment over the past year would reverse progress. “If we remove the mechanisms that actually increased enlistment this year, we will go backward,” he said. Illouz also criticized the bill’s definition of who counts as Haredi. “Without a clear definition of who is considered Haredi, the data will not reflect reality,” he said. In documents he submitted to the committee earlier, he warned that broad classifications create the appearance of attainable targets without providing the tools to meet them.
A decisive intervention came from Likud lawmaker Yuli Edelstein, the former committee chair removed earlier this year after advancing a previous draft opposed by ultra-Orthodox parties. Edelstein told the committee that the present text “does not aim to recruit Haredim but to preserve the coalition,” warning that passing the bill as written would harm national security. He rejected comparisons to his earlier proposal as “a mistake.”
Lawmakers from Religious Zionism added their own resistance. Immigration and Absorption Minister Ofir Sofer said he would vote against the bill even at the risk of being removed from government, and party members Michal Woldiger and Moshe Solomon expressed similar positions. Their statements pointed to a growing possibility of coalition-wide resistance unless major elements of the proposal are rewritten.
Despite confronting Bitan, Gotliv maintained that the government remains functional. “I truly hope we all return to routine, because I believe this is a good government,” she said.
Passal, while critical of the procedural confrontations, said he believes the coalition can still succeed but must restore credibility around the draft process. “People want to support a serious bill,” he said, “but they need to believe the targets can actually be met.”
These disputes reveal a movement working through competing views of governance. Some lawmakers stress institutional integrity and warn that procedural shortcuts weaken the Knesset. Others focus on the security concerns connected to the draft bill. A younger and more pragmatic current argues that reforms should continue moving forward, with adjustments made during the process rather than beforehand.
A further source of uncertainty stems from outside the legislature. The prime minister has formally asked President Isaac Herzog to consider a presidential pardon or another legal mechanism that would halt his trial. Israeli presidents have full discretion in such matters and no obligation to respond quickly. The uncertainty surrounding Herzog’s eventual decision has added to unpredictability inside the governing bloc, with lawmakers acknowledging privately that the request carries legal and constitutional implications far beyond the courtroom.
Looking toward the 2026 elections, Likud now faces internal realignments combined with pressures extending well beyond the faction itself. The primaries reshaped the party’s internal map. The broadcasting reform exposed procedural and ideological divisions. The draft bill brought competing views on national service into direct conflict. And the pending decision from the president introduces yet another source of instability.
Netanyahu has kept both reforms advancing, yet recent debates show how openly the party’s internal differences are now being aired. Likud’s direction will depend on whether senior lawmakers can agree on a shared path—or whether this month’s divides deepen further.