It seems Bibi is unfit.
The guy has gone mad.

Come on, seriously, don’t play innocent. That’s how politics works. You can’t come out against the head of your party and keep serving in his government. That’s how it has always been, because that’s how politics works. Not that it’s a good thing, but that’s how the game works. And you can’t claim that the defense minister is just expressing an opinion—opinions are not expressed at a press conference (unless you want to be fired). Coalition discipline also matters.

If the person in charge of security cannot warn about an imminent and real security danger that he sees before his eyes,
where are we headed?
Russia?
Afghanistan?

Forgive me, but you’re talking nonsense. The defense minister can warn, and you can be sure that he did warn. But there is a big difference between warning and declaring at a press conference that he will act against his prime minister’s decision. Say that it was necessary, that he thinks this is an emergency situation that requires breaking the rules, etc. etc.—totally fine. But then he shouldn’t be surprised if he is fired afterward; that is completely legitimate.

He did not declare that he would act against the prime minister’s decision. He merely publicly called for stopping the legislation; he did not even say he would vote against it. Is it really impossible to imagine a situation in which he warned him personally about real problems, saw that there was no response at all and even contempt for what he said, and felt there was no choice but to warn the entire country, in the hope that there would finally be serious attention. It is hard to say that what Netanyahu did in response on Thursday night was serious engagement.

If the grounds for dismissal are the statement that the legislation needs to be stopped, then that is a badge of shame for Bibi. What was claimed in the newspaper is that the grounds were a soft attitude toward refusal to serve, and if that is the case then the dismissal is justified and even necessary.

I disagree with you about the justification. But the timing is very interesting. The decision that he had handled refusal to serve with a soft touch arrived exactly after he spoke in favor of stopping the legislation. Interesting, no?

It’s not “he merely called to stop…” If he warned them and no one paid attention to him and they even belittled him (which is not very likely at all, certainly not on Netanyahu’s part), then he should resign and only then hold a press conference and warn the whole country. You do not know what goes on behind closed doors. And certainly not call for stopping the reform when Netanyahu is not even in the country. In the current situation there is no possibility of retreating from the reform (except for an override clause, which is actually what the Haredim want). Without it there is no point in elections at all. The government now cannot make any significant decision, including war against Hezbollah and Iran, without the High Court of Justice intervening. The High Court has gone completely wild, and its hubris grows from day to day. What is at stake here is the most basic independence and dignity of the Jewish people, who today are represented by the right. No security or economic situation can postpone this. The left wants us to kiss its feet, and only then, in its great kindness, is it willing to enlist and fight in the army (which is also for its own sake). Gallant was a Trojan horse (they should have realized it immediately when he carried out administrative detentions of youths who took revenge for the terror attack in Huwara), and he should also resign from the Knesset. Barkat and Dichter are also at risk of being Trojan horses. Netanyahu had to react quickly, and good for him that he did. I never believed such a thing could even occur to him, so it never even occurred to me, and I was surprised by the move (positively). This is one of the few times Netanyahu has shown leadership.

The timing was not coincidental at all. After all, all the pressure to stop the reform from Gallant’s side was because of the refusal to serve, so instead of dealing with it harshly, he decided to join that refusal itself. Wouldn’t you have fired him in that situation?