‘If Netanyahu Refuses, He Will Be the Refuser’: MK Ginzburg Defends Gantz’s Plan as Opposition Splits
Blue and White MK Eitan Ginzburg defended Benny Gantz’s initiative in an interview with The Media Line, even as Yesh Atid’s Shelly Tal Meron dismissed it as nothing new and vowed never to sit with Netanyahu
On Saturday evening in Ramat Gan, former Defense Minister Benny Gantz announced a proposal to form a temporary six-month “government of redemption,” calling on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Yair Lapid and Avigdor Liberman to join him in a unity coalition that would secure the release of hostages in Gaza and pass the long-delayed ultra-Orthodox draft law before sending Israel to elections in spring 2026. The initiative, unveiled as thousands demonstrated in Tel Aviv for a hostage deal, was immediately met with rejection from both Netanyahu’s allies and key opposition leaders, exposing the political rift over Israel’s most urgent crisis.
“The government’s term will begin with a hostage deal that brings everyone home,” Gantz said, presenting his plan as a pragmatic path to rescue the captives and overcome the far-right veto inside the coalition. But as his words reverberated through the political establishment, reactions revealed just how divided Israel’s leadership has become.
For the first time, someone from the opposition puts forward a real solution. We must know we did everything possible to bring back the hostages and to solve the draft law.
Blue and White MK Eitan Ginzburg told The Media Line that the proposal was not merely symbolic. “If Netanyahu refuses, he will be the refuser,” he said. “For the first time, someone from the opposition puts forward a real solution. We must know we did everything possible to bring back the hostages and to solve the draft law.” For Ginzburg, the three pillars of Gantz’s plan—hostage release, a universal service outline and an agreed election date—represented “an emergency government without extremists” and an act of leadership that required paying a political price.
From Oct. 7, we offered the prime minister to join the government if he would take out the extremists. He did not do so.
But Yesh Atid MK Shelly Tal Meron point-blank rejected the idea. “There’s nothing new in what he’s offering,” she told The Media Line. “From Oct. 7, we offered the prime minister to join the government if he would take out the extremists. He did not do so. After that, we offered him time and time again a safety net when it comes to a hostage deal. So there’s no need to go into the government. We can support it from outside.”
Tal Meron was emphatic: “We will not join a government with Benjamin Netanyahu, even if Gantz does. I think this prime minister should end his current government, and when he ends it, he should go and focus on his trial. That is the best thing that should happen.”
This holiday season, give to:
Truth and understanding
The Media Line's intrepid correspondents are in Israel, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Pakistan providing first-person reporting.
They all said they cover it.
We see it.
We report with just one agenda: the truth.
Yair Lapid was not alone in rejecting the plan. Avigdor Liberman, leader of Yisrael Beytenu, lashed out at Gantz in scathing terms, calling his proposal “a pitiful show” and describing him as “a tired, scared, terrified person who is begging for his life and is taking a ride on the most sensitive issues.” His party reiterated that “the only government we will be part of is a broad Zionist government, and we will not take part in any spin.”
From Likud, the dismissal was immediate. A senior party source said there was no need for reassurance because “it’s obvious and self-evident” that Netanyahu would not break his right-wing bloc for Gantz. “Gantz is invited without conditions if he so wishes, without any change to the coalition’s composition and with an effort to bring back the Haredi partners,” the source explained. For the prime minister, keeping far-right ministers Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich at his side remains essential to survival.
No political change is required for a hostage deal, only the decision of one man
The backlash extended beyond the coalition. Former IDF Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot, once Gantz’s closest political partner, dismissed the proposal entirely. “No political change is required for a hostage deal, only the decision of one man,” he said, urging Netanyahu to move forward in two phases to free captives as quickly as possible. Gantz countered that without his entry into the government in October 2023, “116 women and children would not have returned home,” stressing that leadership meant saying yes, not always no. The exchange emphasized the growing isolation of the Blue and White leader.
On the streets of Tel Aviv, the resonance was visceral. Hostage families stood on stage in Hostages Square warning that a military advance into Gaza City would seal the fate of their loved ones. Tal Meron echoed their fear: “They are very afraid this will endanger the hostages that are still alive. When the IDF comes close to the tunnels, the terrorists are going to execute them. That is a huge risk to take.”
On one hand, he’s saying, let’s occupy Gaza. On the other hand, he’s sending a team for negotiations. I wish the prime minister would talk to his people and explain more deeply what he’s planning,.
She also voiced frustration at the government’s mixed signals. “On one hand, he’s saying, let’s occupy Gaza. On the other hand, he’s sending a team for negotiations. I wish the prime minister would talk to his people and explain more deeply what he’s planning, because there is a conflict between the two. I’m not sure what’s happening.”
Let’s say they do occupy Gaza City. Who is going to govern Gaza the day after?
Beyond the immediate crisis, Tal Meron questioned the absence of any long-term vision. “Let’s say they do occupy Gaza City. Who is going to govern Gaza the day after? Who is going to run the civil life—the health system, the sewage system, the education system? There is no plan.” With nearly 900 soldiers killed, more than 18,000 wounded, and hundreds of thousands of reservists exhausted after nearly two years of war, she warned that Israel lacks the manpower for permanent occupation. “That’s why we are so persistent that we have to enlist the ultra-Orthodox,” she said. “We need more soldiers.”
The financial toll is another looming question. “This war is costing us billions and billions of dollars every day,” she noted. “Who is going to finance occupying Gaza? Are we going to finance Palestinian hospitals and their education system? Who is going to pay for all of this?”
Observers see in Gantz’s gambit both audacity and futility. Analysts noted that while Israelis talk about unity, they rarely reward it at the polls. Gantz himself soared above 40 mandates in early wartime polls, only to watch support dwindle as Netanyahu’s bloc held firm. For some commentators, his latest move is doomed but admirable—proof of a politician willing to risk collapse for consensus.
For Ginzburg, that consensus remains the only path forward. “Part of what led us to Oct. 7 was that we were divided,” he said. “The prime minister has a heavy responsibility because he must ensure unity, and he failed. After Oct. 7, all these things must be put aside to try to reach broad agreements on issues that unite Israeli society. Because in the end, we must understand: We have no other country.”
Twenty-two months into the war, Israel’s hostages remain in Gaza, their families cry out for rescue, and the country’s leaders spar over how to achieve it. In Ramat Gan, Gantz called for a government of redemption. In Tel Aviv, the streets demanded redemption itself.
