Israel’s Defense Minister Yoav Gallant drew significant attention last week when he went public with a pointed demand that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu commit immediately to developing a plan for the replacement of Hamas governance in Gaza that does not include Israeli civilian control.
Gallant’s argument is simple. He contends that Israel’s war effort has already dismantled most of Hamas’ battalions, dramatically minimizing (but clearly not removing) the organization’s security threat to Israel. But if Israel doesn’t come forward with a plan for a governing alternative in Gaza and leaves Hamas in control over civilian life in the area, the terror group will be able to rebuild and strengthen itself and recreate the very threat that led to Oct. 7 and the current war.
Gallant is focused on governance and security issues in Gaza in what is referred to as “the day after” — the post-war period when formal fighting abates, efforts are pursued to re-establish orderly government, systems and security and initial steps are taken to begin rebuilding Gaza’s ruins. Gallant and many senior IDF officers believe Israel’s failure to articulate and work toward the establishment of a governing alternative to Hamas has forced the IDF to return and fight in areas that had already been secured, in northern Gaza and elsewhere.
Gallant supports an approach that would work with a “revamped” Palestinian Authority to take over administration of Gaza, with an international force, anchored by the United States, to assist with security issues. He opposes continued Israeli military control and administration of Gaza.
Netanyahu and elements of his hard-right flank disagree. They are critical of Gallant’s failure to complete the total destruction of Hamas and dismissive of Gallant’s concerns about Israeli military and administrative control — arguing that a continued Israeli presence in Gaza is both necessary and preferable. In Netanyahu’s words, “I am not willing to replace Hamastan with Fatahstan” — a reference to the dominant political faction in the Palestinian Authority, which Netanyahu argues “supports terror, educates terror and funds terror.”
Gallant’s approach is consistent with the efforts of the Biden administration, which has been urging Netanyahu to start building Palestinian forces that can take over security responsibility in Gaza. That approach seeks to avoid a Gaza repeat of the festering problems Israel faces in the West Bank, complete with settler efforts to return to Gaza under Israeli military protection. But neither Netanyahu nor several of his hard-right coalition members are willing to accept that approach.
The continuation of Netanyahu’s governing coalition may depend on how it addresses post-war Gaza, particularly in light of right-wing demands led by Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich to expand Israel’s control in the West Bank and to rebuild Jewish settlements in Gaza.
We join in urging the Netanyahu government to articulate a “day after” plan that is practical, realistic and fair. Such a plan should give direction to the IDF’s war efforts, clarify the intended path forward and provide hope for the hostages’ return and a potential peaceful existence for the Palestinians.
The clock is ticking.
