Ben Gvir in Woodmere

And the mistaken portrayal of the controversy

I really did not want to write about this. I have friends, colleagues, neighbors and relatives on both sides of this. Whatever I write, people that I care about will get upset with me. Still, I hope that they appreciate that I write on these topics not to virtue-signal or jump on a banwagon, but because I care about issues and feel that I have something unique to contribute. And living in Israel, with a son in the IDF, I have skin in the game.

There is a huge controversy over Itamar Ben-Gvir’s visit to New York. Oddly, nobody seems to be saying anything about his smiling and nodding to the claim that the Mashiach has already arrived and is living at 770 Eastern Parkway, which would seem to be the first public instance of an Israeli government minister endorsing such a thing. Instead, the controversy is about his being invited to speak at shuls in Woodmere, and the backlash that resulted in his being subsequently cancelled from one of them. It is presented and perceived as follows:

For opponents of his speaking invitations, he’s a racist, a Kahanist, a person who has been convicted in Israel of multiple crimes, a chillul Hashem, someone who in the past expressed an intent to “get to” Rabin shortly before he was assassinated, who hung a picture of Baruch Goldstein in his home, and who has toned down his earlier statements out of political expediency rather than genuinely renouncing them.

For opponents of his cancellation, he’s a government minister and thereby worthy of respect, a politician representing Religious Zionists, a man who “gets it” about the Arabs and about what needs to be done, a man who isn’t afraid to speak the truth, while those opposing him are liberal Leftists who don’t live in Israel and don’t understand the issues, and who are engaged in the unacceptable Woke policy of cancelling people.

I’d like to present a third perspective, one that doesn’t discuss the racism and morality issue at all. Enough people have weighed in on both sides of that already, and there’s nothing to be said that would change anyone’s minds. Instead, I want to clarify a different point. The idea that the two sides are as those portrayed above is a fallacy.

There are plenty of people in Israel, including religious Zionists, including right-wing religious Zionists, who are against Ben Gvir. The idea that anyone who opposes him is a “Leftist” is simply absurd, and part of Bibi’s ingenious and utterly fabricated division of Israel. In fact, most of the right-wing in Israel for most of Israel’s history would have had nothing to do with the likes of Ben Gvir, the political heir of Meir Kahane. None other than Menachem Begin denounced Kahane as a "crazy man" and Yitzchak Shamir would walk out when he spoke.

Why are many right-wing Israelis against Ben Gvir? In some cases this is because they believe that he is immoral and perverting Torah values. But in other cases it’s for an entirely different reason. It’s because they think that he is a threat to national security, a danger to the Jewish People. They believe that the Left’s naïvety and delusions and reckless risk-taking and messianic fantasies are paralleled by the naïvety and delusions and reckless risk-taking and messianic fantasies of Ben Gvir.

The vast majority of Israelis are under no illusions about the Palestinians. There is no “Left” left, it collapsed after the Second Intifada. Pretty much everyone realizes that giving the Palestinians a state would very likely result in disaster. Most Palestinians don’t want to create a peaceful state alongside Israel; they want to fight the “injustice” of 1948 and everything that resulted from that, and get rid of the Jews who, they believe, stole their land. In this part of the world, concessions often demonstrate weakness and invite a violent response. There’s nothing that Ben Gvir “gets” about Palestinians that other people don’t get.

The question is, what should Israel actually do? There’s a common fallacy that since the Left was wrong and the Right was right, then the more Right you are, the more right you are. But that’s as much of a logical fallacy as those who claim that since tzniyut involves covering up parts of the body, then a burqa is the ultimate expression of tzniyut.

The world is a complicated place, and Israel especially so. One always has to weigh up complicating factors, pros and cons, conflicting goals. Believing in the luxury of unlimited “Jewish Strength” is naive and dangerous. It’s the exact same mistake made by zealous Jews two thousand years ago that led to the Destruction of Judaea. Ben Gvir said “Hague Shmague”; two thousand years ago, he would have said “Rome Shmome.” We simply cannot assume that God is always going to help us; He has made no such assurance. Israel is strong, but not invincible.

First of all, there simply aren’t anywhere near enough soldiers for all of Ben Gvir’s fantasies. There aren’t even enough soldiers for the current reality. Meanwhile, Ben Gvir is propping up a government that enables and finances a quarter of draft-age soldiers to be exempt simply because they are charedi. He is weakening the IDF, not strengthening it.

Second, Israel certainly cannot go it alone. Being aware of the irrational and pathological global hatred of Israel does not mean that we have the luxury of thumbing our nose at the entire world, as Ben Gvir and his supporters like to do. To give but one example, a modern fighter jet requires 15,000 components, and there is no way that Israel will ever be able to produce all of these by itself. Then there is the rather large matter of the economy, which also depends upon good relations with other countries who do not want to run into problems themselves. Ben Gvir dismissed the Hague as being inconsequential, but being condemned for violating international law, whether justly or unjustly, has extremely harmful and dangerous ramifications for Israel and is something that we absolutely need to try to avoid.

Disagree with all this if you want. But recognize that those who oppose Ben Gvir include people who have skin in the game, who are smart and educated and right-wing and religious, and who sincerely believe - with reason - that Ben Gvir and “Jewish Strength” are a dangerous threat to Israel’s survival. It has nothing (necessarily) to do with being woke, liberal, left, not understanding Arabs or not caring about Jewish lives.

What about the alleged problem of cancelling people? As someone who has been cancelled in a rather extreme way, I have no problem with it. Everyone has the right to protest that which they find objectionable. Free speech does not require that objectionable people be given the honor of a platform. Free speech does mean that people are allowed to object to that which they find objectionable.

(Moreoever, those who profess to be outraged at this cancellation are generally those would be perfectly fine with others being cancelled. When Naftali Bennett was prime minister, his right-wing, religious Zionist colleagues were cancelled from speaking engagements at shuls in New York. Betzalel Smotrich himself declared that not only should these religious Zionist Jews be banned from speaking at shuls, but even from davenning at them! Ben Gvir and his supporters certainly believe in strongly protesting that which they disagree with - to the extent of illegally breaking into IDF bases. Don’t pretend that you object to “cancelling” or to “disrespecting Israel” if it’s really the opposition to extreme right-wing politics that you object to.)