In a calculated political move reminiscent of Benjamin Netanyahu’s 2005 resignation, Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir stepped down from his cabinet post on Sunday, coinciding with the implementation of a ceasefire deal with Hamas. According to The Jerusalem Post, Ben-Gvir’s resignation appears to mirror Netanyahu’s strategy of resigning on principle to consolidate power among right-wing voters.
Ben-Gvir’s far-right Otzma Yehudit party announced its withdrawal from the coalition, with all three party ministers—Ben-Gvir, Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu, and Negev, Galilee, and National Resilience Minister Yitzhak Wasserlauf—submitting resignation letters to Prime Minister Netanyahu. This move comes in protest of the ceasefire agreement and hostage deal, which Ben-Gvir described as a “surrender” to Hamas.
The report draws a strong parallel between Ben-Gvir’s resignation and Netanyahu’s decision to leave Ariel Sharon’s government in 2005 over the Gaza Disengagement Plan. At the time, Netanyahu, then serving as finance minister, warned that the withdrawal would turn Gaza into a “base for Islamic terror” and a direct threat to Israeli security. Similarly, Ben-Gvir has argued that the current ceasefire undermines the gains made in the ongoing Gaza conflict and strengthens Hamas.
Both resignations were timed to maximize political impact. Netanyahu resigned just before a cabinet vote on the Disengagement Plan, aligning himself with right-wing opposition to the withdrawal. Ben-Gvir’s resignation came after the cabinet approved the ceasefire agreement, signaling his alignment with hardline voters opposed to the deal.
Netanyahu’s resignation in 2005 allowed him to position himself as the leader of the right-wing base, a move that resonated with Likud supporters and paved his return to the prime minister’s office in 2009. Similarly, Ben-Gvir is using his resignation to strengthen his appeal to right-wing voters, particularly from the Religious Zionist Party, Likud, and Shas. While Ben-Gvir’s ambitions do not currently extend to the prime ministership, the move is aimed at solidifying his influence within the Knesset and among hard-right voters in future elections.
Despite the similarities, there are notable differences between the two resignations. Netanyahu, though he opposed the Gaza withdrawal, had previously voted in favor of the Disengagement Plan before ultimately resigning. Ben-Gvir, in contrast, has maintained consistent opposition to the ceasefire and hostage deal. Furthermore, Netanyahu resigned alone, leaving his party in the coalition, whereas Ben-Gvir has withdrawn his entire faction from the government.
Both Netanyahu’s and Ben-Gvir’s resignations destabilized their respective coalitions but did not immediately topple the governments. Netanyahu’s move, though symbolic, did not halt the Gaza withdrawal, and similarly, Ben-Gvir’s resignation is unlikely to stop the ceasefire agreement. However, as The Jerusalem Post notes, such resignations serve as tools to enhance political power in the long term rather than effect immediate policy change.
Herb Keinon, the report’s author, suggests that while Netanyahu may be frustrated by Ben-Gvir’s actions, he can hardly criticize the move, as it closely follows the strategy Netanyahu himself employed two decades ago to solidify his right-wing credentials.
Ben-Gvir’s resignation, while disruptive, positions him as a key player in Israel’s hard-right politics, potentially influencing future elections—whether they occur as scheduled in October 2026 or earlier.
