The coalition on Monday entered crisis mode over an attempt by National Security Minister MK Itamar Ben-Gvir to force Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to make him a member of a small war cabinet.
Ben-Gvir’s attempt came in the form of a threat to vote against a bill that was important to Shas, another key ally of Netanyahu, unless his wish was fulfilled. The bill was similar to a bill known as the “Rabbi’s Law,” which fell a number of weeks ago after members of the Likud opposed it.
The ploy ultimately failed, and Ben-Gvir was not promoted to a more influential role. However, the Shas bill was removed from the agenda, as Ben-Gvir’s threat to oppose it left the coalition without a majority.
Netanyahu responded by cancelling a meeting between him and Ben-Gvir scheduled for later Monday evening.
Shas was furious with both Ben-Gvir and Netanyahu, and called on its MKs to leave the plenum, which left the coalition without a majority. The coalition was therefore forced to remove all of its bill proposals from the agenda and none of its proposals progressed.
The party said in a statement, “Shas sees with grave severity the irresponsible conduct of Ben-Gvir, in his systematic and blatant violation of coalitional commitments and a vote against bills that were approved in the ministerial committee [on legislation]. With this conduct the minister Ben-Gvir again gave a prize to the opposition which leaps at every opportunity to bring down the right-wing government.”
According to KAN, Deri said to the prime minister that “there is no point for the government to continue if it is not functioning.” The quote was not confirmed by a Shas spokesperson.
Ben-Gvir claimed earlier on Monday that rather than accept his demand, the prime minister had made a deal with the two Israeli-Arab parties to abstain from the vote, in order for it to pass regardless of Ben-Gvir.
A source from the Hadash-Ta’al party denied the claim, saying that the Arab parties never voted on issues of religion and state. But after Ben-Gvir’s accusation they decided to vote against the bill so as to refute his claim of a deal with the Likud.
Ben-Gvir later criticized Netanyahu, saying that the National Security Cabinet meetings had “no real content” nad arguing that the prime minister was acting like a “one-man government.”
New bill implications
The bill in question on Monday, proposed by Shas MK Erez Malul, would have given the government the power to fund new positions in municipal religious councils, for rabbis or other religious officials.
Ben-Gvir first made a similar threat in June regarding the original “Rabbi’s Bill,” which was widely considered an attempt by Shas to appoint people affiliated with it to rabbinical positions in cities and neighborhoods. However, Netanyahu in June refused and the bill eventually fell. Ben-Gvir’s demand at the time came after the war cabinet was dissolved due to the National Unity party leaving the government.
The bill this time, had a similar purpose to the original Rabbis Bill, as it stated that the government could provide funding for additional jobs in municipal religious councils. However, the bill solved a major problem with the former Rabbis Bill. The former Rabbis Bill would have altered the makeup of the body responsible for electing municipal rabbis in a way that increased Shas’ power in the election process. But this would have come at the expense of the municipalities themselves, who would have lost the power to appoint their own rabbis but still would have had to pay their salaries. Therefore, a number of mayors, including from the Likud, fiercely objected the law.
However, the bill that reached the plenum on Monday would give Shas power to appoint allies to religious positions in municipalities, but would force the government to fund these positions, and thus the burden would not fall to the mayors.
The attorney general’s office opposed the bill, arguing in preliminary debates in the Knesset Constitution Committee that the law would grant the government a limitless amount of appointments and thus the budgetary repercussions were unclear.
Lapid provides a safety net
In other political news on Monday, opposition leader MK Yair Lapid repeated a commitment that he made earlier in the war, that he was willing to provide a “safety net” to Netanyahu
Lapid emphasized, “It is not true that Netanyahu has to choose between the hostage deal and continuing his tenure as Prime Minister. He should make the deal. If Smotrich and Ben-Gvir withdraw, he will get a safety net from me.”
“It’s not an easy decision, but the most important thing is to bring the hostages home. The hostage deal has a large majority among the people, it has a large majority here in the Knesset, it needs to happen. We are repeatedly offering Netanyahu a political safety net to make the deal – now,” he concluded.
Earlier today, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich wrote, “Hamas is collapsing and begging for a ceasefire. This is the time to press on their neck until we crush and break the enemy. Stopping now, just before the end, and allowing them to recover so they can fight us again is a senseless folly that will squander the war’s hard-earned achievements.”
Smotrich later said, “I won’t be part of a deal that means surrendering to Hamas. IDF soldiers demand victory!”
Comments are closed.