Ben Gvir's star has risen — this is why to stay away

Mere hours before white slips descend into blue ballot boxes for Israel’s fifth elections in three years, attempting to predict whether Bibi will finally win remains an exercise in prophecy, not pollstery.

But whether Netanyahu takes back power or not, this particular election will be with us for some time to come, in the shape of this round’s breakout star, Otzma Yehudit leader Itamar Ben Gvir.

Ben Gvir’s uncompromising rhetoric against both Arab terror and secularization of Israel’s Jewish character have won his party double figures in polls, making him the darling of the right, and bête noire of the left.

After a long time on the fringes of Israeli politics, the Chevron resident’s fiery brand of Jewish strength — his party’s name — is here to stay. His rise deserves a response in these pages.

Simply put, Ben Gvir merits neither the hate of the Jewish left nor the adulation of some, including chareidim, on the right.

The first part is easy. From left-leaning editorial pages in Israel and secular Jewish outlets worldwide, a cry of gevalt has arisen at the notion of Ben Gvir charging like a bull into the delicate china displays of Israeli democracy. The Otzma leader has been castigated as racist, extreme, and a dangerous hate-monger for his positions on Arab rights and alternative lifestyles.

Ram Ben Barak — a former deputy Mossad director and current politician from Yair Lapid’s party — went so far as to compare Ben Gvir’s rise to that of Hitler.

But wonder of wonders, those clamoring for his ouster in the name of democracy have a curious blind spot when it comes to the left’s own coalition partners.

As things stand, the only way for Yair Lapid to form a government is with the support of Israel’s Arab parties, who compete with each other in praising Palestinian terrorists with Jewish blood on their hands.

Such are the pretzel-like ideological contortions of the anti-Netanyahu coalition that they prefer these unsavory allies to far-right Jews.

“Ben Gvir prays for your son and mine who serve in the IDF,” wondered Kalman Libeskind, an anchor on Israel’s main radio station, to Meretz politician Michal Rozin, “yet you prefer Aida Touma-Suleiman, who calls the terrorists they fight shahidim?”

Yet with all the above, there are very good reasons for hoping that Ben Gvir’s ascendancy — including growing allure for segments of the chareidi community — proves brief.

Because as much as the disruptive lawyer-turned-politician is proudly religious, supports Torah study, and wants to increase Jewish identity in Israel’s schools, his nationalism leads him to take positions that are at odds with halachah.

He’s a leader of the struggle to allow Jews access to the Har Habayis, which pits him against most major poskim who agree that such entry is forbidden nowadays.

There’s more. While Ben Gvir has moderated his message over the past few years, and has been very careful not to say anything that would get him disqualified from running as his Otzma predecessors were, there’s no mistaking his Kahanist roots.

Those circles have given Israel phenomena like the Jewish underground and price-tag attacks, which have endangered Jewish lives.

The fact that all of this is done with genuine love for Eretz Yisrael and Am Yisrael — that we can all learn from — is immaterial.

Halachah is not Play-Doh, and strong-arm nationalism has been shunned by gedolim as dangerous.

Playing on his rising fortunes, the Otzma campaign ran with the slogan, “It’s Ben Gvir Time.” But even as we utterly reject the rhetoric about Ben Gvir emerging from the left, going forward, the responsible majority of religious Jews should make clear that, big Jewish heart notwithstanding, it’s not time for Ben Gvir.

Help Wanted

Oh, dear — Americans need a hand with Britain’s new prime minister.  The trouble — predictably — began at the top, where Joe Biden memorably mangled his first attempt at pronouncing Rishi Sunak’s name.

“Congratulations, Rashid Sanook,” he said, displaying an admirable mastery of spoonerism.

Further down the line, things went south as well, when comedian Trevor Noah claimed on the Daily Show that the election of Sunak — who has Indian roots — provoked a racist “backlash.”

That, as Britons of all stripes protested, was rubbish. Unlike America, with its history of slavery, or neighboring France, with millions of badly digested immigrants, Britain is comfortable in its multi-ethnic skin.

The country is “the most successful multiracial democracy on earth and proud of this historic achievement,” tweeted former chancellor Sajid Javid, who is himself of Pakistani origin.

Noah need look no further than the current Foreign, Home and Trade ministers — of black, Asian-black and black ancestry respectively — for proof of that point.

Whether Noah is interested in anything besides knee-jerk liberal point-scoring is another story.

Industrial Revolution

War, to coin a phrase, is the mother of all inventions, military and civilian. The Napoleonic wars gave us canning; flying took off in World War I; and the conflagration 20 years later gave us the computer.

In Europe’s first war since 1945, ubiquitous drone use looks like the latest advance.

While the United States and Israel have long mastered the technology for offensive and reconnaissance purposes, impoverished but plucky Ukraine is now at the forefront of their deployment in terms of sheer reach.

Turkish-supplied Bayraktar drones were instrumental early on in making up for the deficiencies of Kiev’s conventional air power.

And from sundry media reports, it seems that at every level of warfighting — from artillery attacks to local infantry movements — nothing happens without sending up those whirring, fragile eyes-in-the-sky. Democratization of intelligence-gathering seems a fait accompli.

But when the guns fall silent, how will Ukraine’s experience change our domestic lives?

50.9 %

In the global battle for allies and influence between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel has just lost a very influential friend. Brazilian president, Trump ally, and Israel-lover Jair Bolsonaro lost his re-election battle by a very narrow margin to Lula da Silva, who held the office from 2003 until 2010.

For Israel-Brazilian relations, it’s bed-of-roses to tragedy in one day. Lula — as the incoming president is known — is a fervent Palestinian supporter. Back on a 2010 visit to Israel, he snubbed his hosts by refusing to visit the grave of Theodore Herzl and went on to recognize a Palestinian state as well as foster close ties with Iran.

As a regional heavyweight, too, Brazil’s reversion to the “problem” column matters for the knock-on effect it could have. “There goes the neighborhood,” is one way of putting it.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 934)