Protests across Israel erupted following a government move that led to the dismissal of Defense Minister Yoav Galant. The decision, tied to Galant’s public support for delaying judicial reform, was reported by Yedioth Ahronoth and triggered a wave of demonstrations that spread beyond the capital. Crowds gathered to voice opposition to the government and to signal their faith in Galant as a counterpoint to the reform plan’s momentum.
In Tel Aviv, protesters lined the streets around government offices and caused traffic disruptions as they pressed for a pause on the judicial overhaul and a broader debate involving all sectors of society. The action reflected a broader street-level push to slow the reform and elevate public dialogue as a path toward consensus.
Conscience of the country’s civic dispute, a group of demonstrators proceeded to Galant’s residence in the Amikam outpost area in the north, signaling strong support for the sacked minister and his stance against the rapid push for reform. The show of solidarity underscored the political rift between the government and segments of the public who favored a more measured approach.
Reports described Yoav Galant, who previously held the role of Defense Minister, as sending a message regarding the possible resignation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The situation highlighted a moment when the defense leadership was perceived as taking a stand that could redefine senior leadership in the country.
On March 25, Galant urged the government to pause the judicial reform process until there is wide public agreement on the issue. The appeal came during his visit to the United Kingdom, where the minister emphasized the need for inclusive dialogue and careful consideration of the reform’s long-term impact on Israeli institutions and society.
Netanyahu stated that confidence in the defense minister had eroded because Galant had acted without coordinating with the government. In response, a new defense minister had to be appointed within 48 hours, a move that would reshape the cabinet and signal the administration’s position in the ongoing confrontation over judicial policy and national security matters.