Israeli reports of disagreements between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Army Chief of Staff regarding possible military movements against Iran have sparked widespread controversy regarding the powers of the transitional government, at a time when Gadi Eisenkot, charged with forming the next government, is seeking security briefings on developments.
On Thursday, Netanyahu and Eisenkot announced an agreement to hold a meeting to inform the latter of political and security developments, a day after they exchanged criticism regarding the management of security files during the transitional phase.
This comes after the Knesset elections that took place on October 27, during which Netanyahu's camp was unable to secure the parliamentary majority necessary to form the next government.
On the other hand, Israeli President Isaac Herzog assigned the leader of the Yashar Party, Gadi Eisenkot, to form a new government, after he was recommended by parties representing 67 out of 120 deputies in the Knesset, compared to 46 deputies who recommended Netanyahu.
But Eisenkot's assignment does not mean that he has become prime minister, or that the formation of his government is guaranteed. He still needs to reach agreements with other parties to form a government coalition that enjoys the confidence of Parliament.
Until a new government is formed, Netanyahu will continue to head the current government and manage state affairs, including security and military files.
The recent developments revive a debate in Israeli political and legal circles regarding the powers of the current government during the transitional period, especially with regard to making major security and military decisions.
What does Israeli law say?
Article Thirty of the Basic Law of Government in Israel stipulates that the outgoing government will continue to perform its duties until a new government is formed.
This means that the transitional government does not automatically lose its powers due to the results of the elections or assigning another person to form the government.
As for Article Forty of the same law, it stipulates that the decision to start a war, or to carry out a major military operation that is expected with near certainty to lead to war, must be issued by the government.
The government can transfer this authority to the mini-ministerial council for political and security affairs, known as the “cabinet,” according to specific conditions related to national security and foreign relations, including confidentiality considerations.
The Cabinet is a body that includes a number of ministers, responsible for discussing sensitive security and military issues and making decisions regarding them within the powers granted to it.
Under these provisions, Netanyahu cannot make a decision to start a war alone, but rather a government decision or a cabinet decision authorizing him to do so is required.
At the same time, the work of transitional governments in Israel is subject to a legal principle that requires exercising a degree of restraint when making long-term decisions, especially those that can be postponed until a new government is formed.
However, this principle does not constitute an absolute ban on making military decisions, nor does it prevent the government from taking action to confront a security threat.
The law also distinguishes between the start of war or operations that are expected to lead to it with close certainty, and other military operations required to defend the state and public security.
Therefore, the evaluation of any potential military decision depends not only on the fact that the government is transitional, but also includes the nature and circumstances of the operation and the extent of compliance with legal procedures.
Who monitors military decisions?
In addition to the government and the cabinet, the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Security Committee plays a key role in parliamentary oversight of the military establishment and the security and intelligence services.
The committee, its chairman, and its relevant subcommittees receive confidential security and intelligence briefings, and can summon senior security and military officials to discuss policies and decisions related to national security.
Article Forty obliges the government to inform the Foreign Affairs and Security Committee as soon as possible of the decision to start a war or carry out a major military operation that falls within its provisions, with additional arrangements for reporting if the Cabinet makes the decision.
The Knesset must also be notified in accordance with the procedures stipulated in the law.
However, this oversight does not mean that the committee has the power to pre-approve or prevent a decision to go to war.
The presidency of the Foreign and Security Committee has become one of the points of political disagreement after the recent elections, as the Change camp seeks to assign its presidency to the leader of the Yisrael Beytenu party, Avigdor Lieberman, as part of arrangements for distributing parliamentary positions.
After the delay in forming the committee in the new Knesset, its formation was officially announced, and its chairman will be elected next Monday, according to Israeli media reports.
This means that the committee has begun its work, but its leadership arrangements have not yet been finalized, which raises a debate about the effectiveness of parliamentary oversight during this stage.
This issue gains additional importance with reports of an upcoming cabinet meeting on Sunday, for the first time in more than a month, amid talk of Israeli military preparations for a possible renewed confrontation with Iran.
It was not officially announced that the meeting would witness a decision on a military operation against Iran.
Why did the dispute escalate between Netanyahu and Eisenkot?
The recent controversy began after reports broadcast by the Israeli Channel 12 about disagreements between Netanyahu and Army Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir regarding possible military operations against Iran, amid fears within the security establishment, according to the channel, that some of these operations would lead to a broader escalation.
There has been no official confirmation that a decision to launch a new attack on Iran has been taken.
Against the backdrop of these reports, Eisenkot sent a letter to Netanyahu in which he called on him to be cautious and avoid military moves that are not prompted by immediate threats and could be postponed until a new government that enjoys the confidence of the Knesset is formed.
Although the message did not explicitly mention Iran, it came in light of the escalating discussion regarding the possibilities of renewed confrontation with it.
Eisenkot also demanded regular security and intelligence briefings, and addressed the government's judicial advisor, Gali Beharav Meara, requesting her intervention regarding the powers of the transitional government and the arrangements for the security briefing.
He said that attempts to arrange security briefings through official channels did not lead to a meeting.
On the other hand, Netanyahu's office rejected Eisenkot's criticism, and considered his letter an attempt to introduce political considerations into national security issues.
The office confirmed that the government's security decisions are taken based on security considerations and in coordination with the security establishment, noting that it had previously taken the initiative to arrange a briefing for Eisenkot.
But the dispute witnessed a development on Thursday, when Netanyahu and Eisenkot announced in a joint statement the agreement to hold a meeting in the Prime Minister’s Office in Jerusalem, in the presence of Netanyahu’s military secretary, Major General Guy Marchesano, to inform Eisenkot of political and security developments.
What did Lieberman say?
Avigdor Lieberman, leader of the Yisrael Beytenu party and former Israeli Defense Minister, on Thursday joined the warnings regarding making military decisions during the transitional phase.
Lieberman said that the transitional government, in his estimation, should not make decisions that could lead to a broad military confrontation without sufficient parliamentary oversight and agreement within the security establishment.
Lieberman called for there to be a broad consensus within the security establishment regarding any major military decision.
Article 40 of the government’s Basic Law does not explicitly stipulate that the approval of all security officials is required before a decision of this kind is taken, while Lieberman’s proposal reflects his interpretation of how such decisions should be managed during the transitional phase.
The ongoing controversy remains related to the powers of the current government during the transitional phase, and to the legal and supervisory procedures associated with making major security and military decisions.
