Replacing Netanyahu with Gantz won’t fix the problem

Israeli minister and member of the “War Cabinet” Benny Gantz visited Washington and London this week. The headlines were mostly about how much Gantz’s visit angered Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But there was more under the surface that we should examine. 

Gantz’s trip was likely motivated by his genuine concern for the relationship between the United States and Israel, which has taken quite a beating since Israel’s last election. Doubtless, a secondary but still important motive was that Gantz wanted to position himself as the voice of reason in Israel, someone who, unlike Netanyahu, could work with the United States and the United Kingdom collegially. This was an image he wanted to project both to his American colleagues and to the Israeli public.

Only time will tell if Gantz was successful, but some important clues in his trip tell us quite a bit about the changing nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship and the current state of play both between the two countries and within Israel, all of which indicate a decline, at long last, in the so-called “unbreakable” bonds. 

Joe Biden’s administration is committed to a distinction between that relationship and the transitory relationship between the administration and the Netanyahu government. The U.S. is very keen to portray the issues as lying with the far-right nature of the current Knesset and cabinet rather than with the deeper, structural issues of an intensely nationalistic ethno-state committed to denying Palestinians their rights.

The problem for Israel and the Biden administration is that the American public is increasingly skeptical of the relationship. Americans’ view of Israel in February 2024, according to a Gallup poll, was down to 58% very or mostly favorable, from 68% last year at the same time. That’s not a historic low, but it is the lowest point since June 2000. Unsurprisingly, the biggest dip is among young adults (64% in 2023, 38% now). 

But more stunning is the poll by YouGov that finds that 52% of Americans want the U.S. to stop sending arms to Israel altogether until it stops its assault on Gaza. 

For Gantz, this highlights the need for him to connect to Washington more directly, to present a different face of Israel that Washington feels it can work with, and which Americans will see in a better light. 

Gantz has been silent on what he told the Americans. He met with Vice President Kamala Harris, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. 

It is notable that the one person whom Israel really needs to communicate with right now did not meet with Gantz. That would be Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who has refused to bring the supplemental spending bill approved by the Senate to the floor of the House. That bill includes the $14.3 billion in extra military aid for Israel that Biden promised months ago. But Johnson would not meet Gantz, quite likely because he wanted to avoid telling an Israeli minister that he would kill an aid bill over a completely unrelated matter, the U.S. southern border. 

While his interlocutors have spoken about some of what they told him — mostly reiterating their support for Israel, their displeasure at the blocking of humanitarian aid, and their warning about launching an attack on Rafah without providing for the safety of Gaza’s civilians — Gantz has been silent about what he told them. 

Gantz has been publicly supportive of measures to expand access to humanitarian aid and to get civilians out of the way before an invasion of Rafah. Of course, Netanyahu has said similar things about plans for removing civilians prior to the Rafah operation. Both men have used the technique of general statements while avoiding any specific descriptions of measures to be taken. 

More ‘rational’ than Netanyahu, but just as tough

Indeed, Gantz’s positions on Gaza are very close to Netanyahu’s. Like many of Israel’s less fanatical leaders historically, he wants to present a more civilized face to the world and prefers to keep a tighter rein on the military and settlers, but his approach to Gaza differs from Netanyahu much more in rhetoric and public relations than it does in actual policy. 

Was this the message that the Americans got, and is that why we have heard so much more about what they told Gantz than what he told them?

That seems likely. It is bolstered by the fact that the Americans often described their meetings with Gantz as being “tough conversations between friends,” which would indicate that Gantz stuck largely to defending Israel’s intention to continue restrictions on humanitarian aid and to attack Rafah. From the few reports of Gantz’s messaging, his reassurances that Israel would refrain from unduly harming civilians were apparently unconvincing, as well they should be given Israel’s track record with such assurances. 

To Israelis, this would communicate the image Gantz wants. He presents himself as the rational alternative to Netanyahu, but one who is just as iron-fisted. It is important to remember that while many Israelis are unhappy with the way the war on Gaza has been handled, much of that dissatisfaction comes from the fact that Netanyahu has treated the Israeli hostages held in Gaza are secondary priorities at best for much of the past five months. Israeli Jews continue to support the war, and a clear majority also opposes expanded humanitarian aid to Gaza. 

The Biden administration is obviously aware of this. They have shown no sign of pressuring Israel into stopping its genocidal activities. Instead, they are employing political theater to try to avoid having to choose between winning a second term and continuing the flow of arms to Israel. 

The theatrics include the airdrops of small quantities of food that don’t begin to make any dent at all in the starvation in Gaza. It also includes the crocodile tears from Kamala Harris as she reiterated the Biden administration’s stance that demands a six-week pause to release hostages and then to commence the slaughter in Gaza once more. 

One would have thought Harris had announced a sharp turn in U.S. policy when it was nothing of the kind. It was precisely what the U.S. has been pursuing in talks for many weeks. But she used the word “ceasefire” and as soon as she did, the crowd erupted in cheers, making it clear what Biden’s supporters want him to do. 

The administration seems to hope that a pause will cause the farthest right parties in the Knesset — those led by Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir — to bolt the government. That would not necessarily lead to the collapse of the government, but it would mean that Gantz, or any other faction leader, could bring it down at any time. 

Gantz would have more influence in that scenario, but if the U.S. thinks that would mean a shift in Gaza strategy, they are not paying attention to either the Israeli public or to Gantz himself. Less than three weeks ago, Gantz said in a speech in Jerusalem, “To those saying the price [of an offensive in Rafah] is too high, I say this very clearly: Hamas has a choice — they can surrender, release the hostages, and the citizens of Gaza will be able to celebrate the holy holiday of Ramadan.” 

Netanyahu couldn’t have said it better. 

Also, Gantz is not a terribly popular figure in Israel, despite current polls that show his party would win a strong plurality of seats if elections were held today. Gantz is not a charismatic leader, and while has wide respect among the Israeli Jewish population, his current polling numbers reflect his being the alternative to Netanyahu more than his personal standing. 

Gantz will be considerably more palatable to Washington than Netanyahu, while his policies toward the Palestinians will not differ much. If the U.S. was unaware of this before, they should understand it by now. 

More likely, though, they are perfectly comfortable with this approach. Gantz would be much more inclined to make gestures that enhanced the illusion that the U.S. was somehow restraining Israeli cruelty. Gantz would also be less interested in embarrassing the Democrats in the hope of a Trump victory, something Netanyahu surely yearns for. 

This is the emptiness of theater as a substitute for policy. It is also the bankruptcy of not recognizing what Israel is. To be sure, the current government is extremist even by Israeli standards. But the root of the problem is not Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, or even Netanyahu. It is the ideology of Israel, an ideology by which its Jewish population believes it is entitled to withhold basic rights from Palestinians. The extremists would withhold it forever, the moderates only until such a time as Palestinians satisfy their demands. But all believe they have the right to decide the Palestinians’ fate and future. 

Both views are dehumanizing and supremacist. Until the United States enacts policy with that understanding, there is no hope for resolution. Palestinian rights must be as sacrosanct as the human rights of any other people, not dependent on Israel’s conditions. Benny Gantz is not the answer to this problem, even from the viewpoint of U.S. interests and policies. Only the recognition of equal rights for every person, from the river to the sea, can the horrors we are witnessing every day be brought to an end.