Does Yoav Gallant's firing come at the cost of hostages, Iran conflict? - analysis

The firing of Defense Minister Yoav Gallant marks a new phase in the year-long war, but does it distance a hostage deal and weaken Israel’s ability to directly battle Iran?

In a brief speech after Netanyahu’s sudden announcement Tuesday night, Gallant alluded to his belief that Israel can make a deal to return the hostages even if it means ending the war.

“It is our moral obligation to ensure the return” of the hostages, Gallant said. “In light of the military achievements over the past year… it is possible to achieve this goal. It requires painful concessions, which the State of Israel can carry and the IDF can bear.” Failure to do so, Gallant said, “would be the ‘mark of Cain’ on Israeli society and all those who lead us on the wrongful path.”

With his departure, in favor of Foreign Minister Israel Katz who will replace him, those who favor a deal lost one of their strongest advocates within the government. His role as defense minister gave added weight to his argument that Israel could afford to end the war.

Gallant’s firing comes amid a dramatic shift in the geopolitics of Israel’s multi-front war, with Donald Trump’s reelection to the White House on that same day.

Trump’s election turns US President Joe Biden into a lame-duck leader, without the clout to finalize a long-term deal unless Hamas believes they will receive better terms with him.

It is unlikely that Gallant’s stance on a deal could have had much impact. Even if Netanyahu agreed with him, the US has been clear that Hamas remains the main stumbling block to a deal.

Gallant granted some representation to those who feel abandoned by PMO

Gallant’s presence in the government and at the helm of Israel’s security services gave those who call for a deal now the feeling of representation at a time when they felt abandoned by the Prime Minister’s Office.

The tension between Netanyahu and Gallant on a host of subjects is well known. His firing now has largely been chalked up to coalition politics, given his objection to the exemption of yeshiva students from the draft.

Netanyahu had wanted to remove Gallant already in March 2023 and had almost fired him a number of times since the Hamas invasion of southern Israel on October 7, 2023.

His firing now comes at a time when Israel is perceived to have neutralized the existential threats posed by Hamas and Hezbollah. It has, however, not met its war goals of eliminating Hamas in Gaza and pushing Hezbollah back to the Litani River.

The two wars continue in the absence of ceasefire deals that secure the southern and northern borders. Gallant’s firing now is therefore possible without harming Israeli security.

Netanyahu’s decision to do so formally marks Israel’s transition to that new phase of both wars, when the defense minister’s diplomatic stance matters more than his military experience.

That is not true when it comes to Israel’s direct battles with Iran, of which there have been two rounds of strikes and counter-strikes.

Gallant’s military experience here is critical. His firing comes less than two weeks after he led a successful strike on Iran, taking out its military production capabilities, and as Israel is braced for a harsh counter-strike that could come any day.

Any defense minister would be hard-pressed to get up to speed with such a short timetable. It will be particularly challenging for Katz, who lacks Gallant’s military experience.

Gallant has also been a key player in the military coordination with the US, which has led a five-army coalition that has twice taken to the skies to defend Israel.

Netanyahu’s removal of Gallant at this critical juncture, therefore, appears to leave Israel vulnerable at a time of imminent attack.

The prime minister has spent the last year routinely spurning charges that he has jeopardized Israel’s security needs in favor of his own political survival. The latest such accusation revolved around the leaked document scandal. Netanyahu’s firing of Gallant in this sensitive time vis-à-vis Iran has only underscored that contention.