The esoteric issues elected officials are obsessing over seem utterly detached from Israeli voters’ existential worries

1

AT this time of anxiety and uncertainty, citizens of the State of Israel could perhaps have drawn a certain measure of comfort from seeing their elected representatives forgoing their annual summer vacations to put in long hours at the Knesset. But the business that preoccupied the people’s representatives might have generated more confusion.

What’s on their minds isn’t an attack from Iran or Lebanon, or the displaced residents of the north, or the beleaguered residents of the south, who suffered a number missile barrages last week after several months’ respite. On the Knesset agenda at this tensest of moments is a series of strangely out-of-touch bills, including a broadcasting bill apparently aimed at benefiting TV channels with ties to the government.

During one night of the recess, the coalition planned a white night at the Knesset to pass critical regulatory legislation ahead of an expected Iranian attack. Except that the Knesset speaker’s office was flooded with requests from MKs’ families to let them spend the evenings at home with their kids instead of in the plenum with their colleagues.

The priorities are perhaps a symptom of the overall confusion gripping the nation; since the big problems are so overwhelming, MKs want to feel useful by addressing small problems, akin to washing the dishes when a family member is sick. But whatever the reasons, the agenda could not proceed: The Otzma Yehudit faction once again failed to show up in the plenum.

From a public relations perspective, the esoteric issues elected officials are obsessing over seem utterly detached from Israeli voters’ existential worries.

The Shas “rabbis law,” which would standardize budgeting and salary scales for municipal rabbinates, the aforementioned broadcasting bill, and other issues on the agenda have sparked acrimonious exchanges between MKs that have spilled out of the plenum and into the lobbies. The crude language and heat of the debate, as well as the sheer time and effort devoted to back-burner issues, make MKs involved in the process seem out of touch.

2

OF course, the invective is not limited to less-pressing issues. Ministers and MKs have also not held back in their public comments on government security actions. Back in April, after Israel’s limited response to Iran’s first direct attack, Public Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir famously tweeted “Dardaleh [lame].” And as Israel weighed a response to Hezbollah’s July 27 attack on Majdal Shams, opposition MK Avigdor Lieberman predicted it would be “metchukmak [disappointing].”

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, on the other hand, are fully invested in matters pertaining to the war. Unfortunately, their efforts are being clouded by their own personal rivalry. The animosity between Netanyahu and Gallant seems to burn more fiercely than that between the Shiites and Sunnis, which Iran and Hamas have somehow managed to sweep under the rug. Gallant never misses an opportunity to show up his boss.

The mutual hostility has affected even basic proceedings. A security cabinet source said this week that the press releases on decisions reached by ministers were being prepared before meetings even convened.

A member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Affairs and Defense admitted to me at the end of a hearing that he has no idea what’s going on, and that committee members are being left out of the process even more than before October 7.

As long as those at the top of the system that oversaw the October 7 fiasco are unable to rise to the occasion, one can hardly expect lower-ranking MKs to put differences aside and focus on the war effort.

3

“We’ve all seen gedolei Yisrael’s instructions not to report [to the draft office],” Degel HaTorah MK Yitzhak Pindrus told me this week. “But we MKs have a mission, to fight in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee for a law that allows Torah learners to continue learning.”

Pindrus hasn’t lost faith. Even as Gallant and a gaggle of Likud backbenchers continue making noise in the media, the sense in the committee is that it is still possible to reach understandings with the professional echelon in the army that could lead to consensus legislation.

“We don’t need help from the defense minister,” a committee member told me. “As long as he doesn’t get in the way.”

One suspects the prime minister would heartily endorse that sentiment. But the chareidi draft issue is just one example of the defense minister’s many axes to grind. Gallant seems intent on turning every disagreement into a vehicle for airing his grievances with the prime minister.

For example, take the following leaked quote from Gallant’s words to Netanyahu: “There’s no security justification for postponing a hostage deal. Since we’re being candid, I’ll tell you that your considerations are not disinterested.”

Fortunately for Netanyahu, there are still people with integrity among the defense officials surrounding him, including Maj. Gen. (res.) Nitzan Alon, head of the Hostages and Missing Persons intelligence unit. In a conversation with families of the hostages, Alon made it clear that Netanyahu’s conditions for a deal (commitment to continue the war, control of the Philadelphi Route, and no unrestricted return of Gazans to the northern strip) are not a departure from the original proposal and are simply clarifications made in the course of the talks.

A member of the Kaplan protest movement before the war, Alon has made no secret of his views. But unlike Gallant, he had the integrity to make clear to the hostages’ families that contrary to reports of his words during the hostage negotiation team’s shouting match with Netanyahu last week, he doesn’t blame Netanyahu for abandoning the hostages.

Chareidi figures who’ve had dealings with Alon weren’t surprised, describing him as an officer and a gentleman — unlike some of his colleagues, who often seem like politicians in uniform.

“In Alon’s case, unlike with other opponents of the reform, we got the sense that an effort was being made to understand the other side,” a source told me. “There was a willingness to listen, talk openly, and show respect even to those he disagreed with.”

There are reports that Alon intends to resign. Netanyahu would probably be happier to be rid of Gallant and let the left-wing Alon remain in his position. But Gallant is entrenched in his office on the 14th floor of the Kiryah, secure in the protest movement’s threat to pull out all the stops should Bibi dare to sack him.

Under fire at home and abroad, the prime minister finds himself unable to risk dismissing his defense minister for fear of opening an eighth front, domestically.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1024)