In the age of social media, we can learn much about a person’s character from what they post — and even more from what they post with a sense of pride.
In the case of Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, there is an interesting range of content: baseless incitement and accusations against political opponents; pride in inflaming tensions on Al Haram Al Sharif under the guise of defending the right of Jews to pray there; and, more recently, a video showing himself taunting activists from a Gaza-bound flotilla intercepted by Israeli naval forces, while they knelt with their hands tied behind their backs.
The last of these was an act more likely to bring someone a step closer to The Hague than to earn the highest military decoration for valor. Bear in mind that even the Israeli military considered him too dangerous to draft into the country’s compulsory military service.
Ben-Gvir is a national embarrassment who represents a very narrow segment of Israeli society: the settler movement. Nevertheless, as long as he occupied the political margins, the damage he could cause was limited. Throughout the years, he has built his reputation as an extreme right-wing activist, a verbally abusive racist in the tradition of Meir Kahane, and a thug with a series of criminal convictions for supporting terrorism and inciting racism.
This is not exactly the resume that would normally lead someone into public office, let alone to become a Cabinet minister. Yet, in a combination of cynicism, political desperation and the need to form a government, Benjamin Netanyahu handed him responsibility for the ministry overseeing the police, the Border Guard and the prison service. Among the many actions for which Netanyahu has been criticized, empowering Ben-Gvir ranks among the most damaging to Israeli society, Israeli-Palestinian relations and much else besides.
His childish and obsessive need for attention appears unquenchable and has become a defining feature of his role in government
Yossi Mekelberg
To argue that Ben-Gvir has demonstrated utter incompetence during his three and a half years in charge of the National Security Ministry would be a massive understatement. His childish and obsessive need for attention appears unquenchable and has become a defining feature of his role in government. He constantly manufactures headlines, both domestically and internationally, while crime rates, particularly homicide rates, have reached record levels under his ministerial watch. In this case, the humanitarian flotilla to Gaza was simply another low-hanging fruit.
Understandably, for the Israeli government, a flotilla carrying hundreds of activists highly critical of Israel’s conduct in Gaza is a nuisance. Likewise, for the country’s security forces, dealing with it while simultaneously managing countless other tasks in a country that has been embroiled in multiple conflicts for nearly three years is far from ideal. Yet, whether one agrees with this type of protest is ultimately irrelevant, because it is entirely legitimate.
Drawing international attention, and perhaps even the attention of the Israeli public, to the inhumane conditions in the Gaza Strip after this devastating war may be an inconvenient truth for Israel, given its role in creating this humanitarian disaster. Nevertheless, no reasonable moral or legal definition could regard this flotilla as hostile to Israel or as a genuine threat to its security.
This Israeli government is not only brutish and incompetent but often lacking in prudence as well. Ben-Gvir and his political twin Bezalel Smotrich are merely prominent examples. The handling of this and previous flotillas is a case in point. A country that has faced repeated accusations of violating international law — whether through the occupation, allegations of genocide in Gaza or accusations of apartheid in the West Bank, regardless of the merits of those claims — would be wise to avoid actions that can be readily interpreted as further breaches of international law, particularly when they create unnecessary confrontations with friendly countries.
The decision to send naval forces, including an elite commando unit, to intercept the Global Sumud Flotilla, board the vessels, detain the activists and redirect the ships to the port of Ashdod was precisely what the activists hoped for. They gained maximum publicity and another opportunity to expose Israel’s security forces and Ben-Gvir as brutal.
Here were dozens of civilian vessels, carrying hundreds of unarmed activists, confronted by military forces in front of rolling cameras. The message practically wrote itself: If this is how peaceful activists are treated, what must Palestinian detainees and prisoners be experiencing? From a public relations perspective, it was game, set and match to the activists.
This flotilla was not carrying large quantities of humanitarian aid that could have dramatically changed conditions in Gaza. Rather, it was primarily a symbolic gesture intended to raise awareness of the humanitarian situation there.
More damage was done by the handling of the flotilla than would likely have resulted from allowing it to reach Gaza
Yossi Mekelberg
Yet, in what has become an all-too-familiar pattern of disproportionate Israeli responses to actions perceived as threatening, or merely unfriendly, the episode ended in a PR disaster. It also led to a diplomatic incident, with Israeli diplomats being summoned for reprimands in several European foreign ministries, as many of the activists originated from those countries.
More damage was done by the handling of the flotilla than would likely have resulted from allowing it to reach Gaza under Israeli supervision, after appropriate security inspections to ensure that no prohibited materials were on board. It is difficult to see how significant harm to Israel’s security could have resulted from such an approach.
Alternatively, if Israel still believed it necessary to prevent the flotilla from reaching Gaza, it could have stopped the vessels in its territorial waters and treated the activists professionally and respectfully, rather than in the manner shown in the footage that Ben-Gvir himself proudly shared on social media. Providing food and drinks and engaging with them courteously would not have changed their political views, but it might have defused tensions and prevented further reputational damage.
If this sounds sensible, that is precisely why Ben-Gvir was unlikely to pursue it, especially so close to a general election. He lives on social media and the episode was such an obvious act of electioneering that Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg, chairman of the Central Elections Committee, ordered Ben-Gvir to remove the post immediately.
Yet, while Ben-Gvir deserves criticism, responsibility does not end with him. Netanyahu, whose political survival has repeatedly depended on alliances with figures such as Ben-Gvir, has adopted a posture of “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” when it comes to the conduct of his ultranationalist partners.
What Netanyahu should have done was dismiss Ben-Gvir immediately upon the publication of the video and unequivocally condemn the behavior it displayed. Since he failed to do so, the stain and shame of the episode belong not only to Ben-Gvir but to both men.
BY: Yossi Mekelberg is a professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House.
Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not necessarily reflect The Times Union‘ point of view
