There is talk of a potential military coup in Israel – could it happen?

The military is unnerved by political turmoil created by the judicial reforms suggested by the current government. They are seen as promoting parliament above judges to ease the legal and constitutional oversight of the most right-wing government in the country's history.  

Until now, laws passed by Israel's parliament have been subject to scrutiny in the courts to ensure they are in line with its constitution.

Many officers and soldiers – especially among volunteer reservists – see the reforms as a dangerous threat to national unity. Broader faith decisions in Israel must be covered by a clear democratic mandate, and complete constitutional oversight has been undermined.

Suspension and top-level tensions

Worries about curbs on the judiciary have extended to national security and even military matters. So much so that when Israel declared a state of war after the 7 October attacks led by Hamas, it also suspended the reforms.

In the words of  the Haaretz newspaper: "The situation in the army is grave … An increasing number of officers and soldiers fear serving a state that deviates from the one they pledged to defend."

Similar concerns have been voiced at the very top of the Israeli establishment.

Herzi Halevi, the chief of the Israel Defence Forces general staff, was reported to have taken a similar message to Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister behind the reform plans.

Media reports of the meeting suggested Halevi warned the discontent could spread beyond the volunteer reserves to the regular reservists, who continue in military service beyond the compulsory period.

Israel united behind its army after 7 October. But the unease between the government and those opposed to the judicial reforms remains, even under the current circumstances. The delay to the start of Israel's ground campaign in Gaza was seen as a sign of that.

The respected Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported on 23 October that a palpable sense of mistrust lingers between the military and the government. Neither institution has challenged its broad and well-sourced reporting.

There are other areas of unease. At the behest of the United States, Netanyahu is thought to have prevented a military operation in the north after the war began. The prime minister was widely seen as trying to avoid blame in the immediate aftermath of the 7 October attacks while pointing out where others had failed.

His conduct contrasts sharply with his predecessor at the time of Israel's defeat in the October War. In 1973, Golda Meir did not seek to evade responsibility and resigned after the war's conclusion but before releasing the investigative committee's report.

Discipline holds, but tensions may grow

Israel's military leaders are currently displaying exemplary discipline and restraint. But it remains possible that the divisions may expand.

A prolonged ground war in Gaza could deepen strains. The longer the conflict, the more pressure Netanyahu will face internationally and from the US to agree on a ceasefire or an extended humanitarian truce. Should that come before the army has accomplished all its military objectives, divisions between it and politicians could worsen.

Then there are potential fault lines after the war when Netanyahu and his right-wing government – already more worried than ever at their political prospects –  may be reluctant to relinquish power, defying conventional expectations that it should resign after the conflict. Such a move is the only way to set up early elections.

Hardliners

Whether or not such a controversial government, with the weakest democratic mandate since 1949, will resign is unclear. It is also backed by religious hardline groups who highlight the authority they draw from the Torah and the teachings of rabbis rather than any other source.

And so there is unprecedented speculation in Israel over whether there could be circumstances where the army will remove a government from power. It would do so under the pretext of safeguarding democracy with temporary rule until new elections.

Recently unthinkable, the question is of the utmost seriousness. But it is also logical, given the current, situation in Israel, both domestically and regionally.

However much has changed in and around the country, an Israeli coup remains highly unlikely. Long-standing traditions, entrenched over seven decades, prevail.

They include resolving political conflict via peaceful means, such as elections or legal protest. And there is a strict separation of the military and political spheres, with the military staying out of decision making process unless expressly summoned by the government.