‘Provocateur’ is but a mild condemnation for the needlessly inflammatory Israeli minister
Take your choice:
Itamar Ben-Gvir brandishing a gun at an unarmed Arab security guard.
Ben-Gvir taunting already captured, aspiring violators of Israel’s blockade of Gaza.
Ben-Gvir stealing the hood ornament from the late Israel Prime Minister’s car and saying that he got the ornament — and Rabin would be next. This was weeks before Rabin was assassinated.
Ben-Gvir conspicuously visiting the top of the Temple Mount, an act forbidden by Jewish law and an act designed to inflame Arab emotions.
Ben-Gvir shouting “Death to Arabs.”
Ben-Gvir hanging a picture in his home of Baruch Goldstein, who murdered 29 Arabs at prayer in Hebron.
Even if one filters out all the charges against Ben-Gvir that are issued by his political opponents, by progressive publications and by countries hostile to Israel, what remains is a worst case scenario for Israel’s Jewish citizens, for Israel’s Arab citizens, for Israel’s image around the world and, if all that were not enough, also for the reputation of Judaism itself.
No amount of improved Israeli “public diplomacy” (hasbara) can undo the damage that this one man has inflicted on Israel and on Jewish principles.
It should not be necessary, but in light of the public posturing of Ben-Gvir, it is necessary, to say:
Judaism is not about lording oneself over Arabs or non-violent opponents of Israel.
Judaism is not about taunting people, about telling people off.
Judaism is not only about land; it is equally about ethics (and much else).
Judaism envisions the holy Land of Israel to be inhabited not only by Jews. Look it up; it’s in the Torah.
It is a mistake to condemn Ben-Gvir for actions that may be distasteful but remain defensible. For example, Ben-Gvir, as a lawyer, has defended three Jews accused of murdering three Arabs, including a baby. Not pretty, to be sure; but in a democracy, every person deserves a defense. American lawyers defending violent, anti-Semitic, student protesters cannot do what they do and then attack Ben-Gvir for doing what he does as a defense attorney.
We mention this to deter side shows. There is no need to put Ben-Gvir in the worst possible light in everything he does. Not to worry, there is no lack of unequivocally indefensible actions by Ben Gvir. There is no need to drag in any of his other ugly actions which, by the book, may be defensible.
The Arab ban on Jews visiting the Temple Mount is racist, the same as a Jewish ban on Arabs visiting the Western Wall would be. However, Ben-Gvir visits the Temple Mount not out of allegiance to religious freedom, but strictly to lord himself over Muslims.
France has banned Ben-Gvir for taunting French members of the flotilla that tried to break Israel’s blockade of Gaza. Even a French minister who opposed the flotilla criticized Ben-Gvir, and the minister was right. For Ben-Gvir, it is not enough to prevent aid from reaching Hamas terrorists in Gaza. For Ben-Gvir, it is not enough for Israel to protect itself. For Ben-Gvir, it is also necessary to brag and to strut and to demean, and in doing so to undermine Israel’s cause around the world.
It is an old truism that it takes much effort to build something, but much less effort (and time) to tear it down. Ben-Gvir is a practitioner of the latter, not the former.
It is no credit to the Netanyahu government that Itamar Ben-Gvir holds a post of minister. Yes, Netanyahu was democratically elected. Yes, Netanyahu, like every Israeli prime minister before him of every political party engaged in horse trading to form a government coalition. All true, but this only points to the choices facing the Israeli electorate in its election next October. Whoever forms the next government, it won’t need to include Ben-Gvir unless he wins enough votes to be a potential coalition partner. Ultimately, Israeli voters elected Ben-Gvir. It is up to them to decide whether they want this shameful and entirely unnecessary blackener of Israel’s good name and Judaism’s reputation in the halls of power.
© IJN 2026
