Founder, https://xitter.cf/t.co/904G6eDonQ / Former Editor-in-Chief, The Jerusalem Post / 🇺🇸🇮🇱 / Pretty Jewish. No big whoop. / [email protected]

Jerusalem, Israel 🇮🇱
Joined September 2008
Last Thursday, I stood in the Oxford Union and delivered the closing argument in a fiery debate about Israel. Arguing against the proposition that “Israel never truly wanted peace with Palestine,” my colleagues @emilykschrader, @HenMazzig, @EinatWilf and I entered the chamber knowing that we would be facing a largely hostile audience, but determined to make our case nevertheless. By the end of the evening, we heard from several students that we had, in fact, changed their minds — a reminder that calm, substantive argument can still move people, even in the most challenging environments. This is the text of my speech. I will share the video as soon as it’s available. ___________________ Madam President, Members of the House, Ladies and gentlemen, It falls to me to bring our case, and this debate, to a close. My colleagues have ably set out the long history of Zionist and then Israeli efforts to achieve peace with the Palestinians: the compromises proposed, the territorial concessions offered, and the repeated willingness of Israeli leaders and the Israeli public to take extraordinary risks in pursuit of that goal — risks all too often paid for in Israeli blood. Our opponents, for their part, have offered a very different story. We have heard painful accounts of dispossession — and they are indeed painful, Dr. Karmi. We have heard selective readings of history and arguments that deny any genuine Jewish claim to the land that both peoples call home. We have heard contortions of logic and inversions of truth that seek to explain away every Israeli overture, every negotiation, every concession, as something other than it appeared to be. And that brings us to the real question before this House tonight. Because we are not being asked whether Israeli governments have fallen short in their efforts to bring about peace. Some have, while others — including those described earlier — have offered dramatic and far-reaching concessions to bring peace about. We are not being asked whether Israeli and Palestinian leaders have, at times, missed opportunities that might have brought peace closer. They have. We are not even being asked whether Palestinians — and Israelis — have suffered due to the absence of peace. They have. No, the motion before this House tonight is far more extreme. It posits that Israel never wanted peace with Palestine. Never. Never? Not Rabin? Not Peres? Not Barak? Not Olmert? Not the hundreds of thousands of Israelis who filled public squares in support of peace? Not the millions who voted for leaders promising territorial compromise? Not the Israeli parents of every generation who, knowing all too well the cost of war, hoped and prayed and dreamed that their children would be the first to finally know peace? Never? Ladies and gentlemen, our opponents have spent this evening asking you to believe something striking: that when Israelis spoke of and prayed for peace, they didn’t mean it. That when Zionist and Israeli leaders offered concessions for peace, they didn’t mean it. That when millions of Israelis voted for peace, they didn’t mean it, either. This is not an argument about Israeli policy. It is an argument about Israeli motives, about the Israeli soul. And the difficulty for our opponents is that they have chosen the wrong people. Because there is no value more essential to the Jewish national soul than peace. The Jewish tradition is suffused with the quest for peace. It courses through our religious texts, animates our prayers, and inspires our vision of a more perfect world. It was the prophet Isaiah who envisioned a future in which peace reigned among nations, uttering those immortal words: “And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.” Every single day, for two millennia, Jews have ended their daily prayers with supplications for peace. The Talmud goes so far as to say that shalom, peace, is one of God’s names, elevating it from an earthly aspiration to the realm of the divine. It is no surprise, then, that when the earliest Zionist thinkers contemplated the Jewish state they sought to create, they envisioned it at peace. Socialists and liberals, revisionists and traditionalists, they differed profoundly in their visions of the state to be. Yet across those divisions ran a remarkably consistent belief: that the Jewish national home should one day live at peace with its neighbors. That aspiration found perhaps its clearest expression in Israel’s Declaration of Independence, issued as five Arab armies advanced upon the nascent state. Even in that moment of existential peril, Israel’s founders proclaimed: “We extend our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land.” And indeed, for generations of Israelis, that aspiration has been not merely a line in a founding document. It has been a sought-after reality, a national ideal, and a deeply personal hope. I am a relic of the 1980s. The first word I learned on my first day of primary school in Jerusalem was shalom, peace — an experience shared by all Israelis, including those in this room, on both sides of this debate. I remember watching, wide-eyed, as Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat shook hands on the White House lawn, certain that a new era of peace was upon us. I remember standing in a massive crowd with my father and younger sister as we were swept toward the gates of the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, to pay our respects to Rabin, felled by an assassin’s bullets in his pursuit of peace. I remember the wave of Hamas suicide bombings that claimed the lives of hundreds of Israelis, including two young girls from my neighborhood — one year my junior — killed in a Jerusalem pizzeria. And I remember how, even in the midst of that surge of murderous terror, even in the wake of a prime minister’s assassination, Israelis pivoted not to the right but to the left, electing a leader who had explicitly campaigned on a platform of territorial concessions for peace and granting Ehud Barak one of the largest margins of victory in Israeli history. But Israel never wanted peace? Never? Really? Ladies and gentlemen, that claim crumbles under the weight of documented history. One can argue that peace has proven elusive. One can argue that opportunities have been missed. One can argue that terrible mistakes have been made. One can even argue that, today, after October 7, the appetite for territorial concessions in the interest of peace is vastly diminished. But to argue that Israelis never wanted peace is not a serious reading of history. It is a denial of history. Indeed, it requires us to believe that millions of people, across multiple generations, did not truly mean what they said — to one another, to their neighbors, and even to God — about one of their most heartfelt aspirations. For if every expression of peace was merely a ruse, every offer a deception, every aspiration a lie, then we are left with a familiar accusation — that what Jews said was never what Jews meant. But beneath much of what we have heard here tonight lies an even deeper, and darker, argument. It is an argument that has animated not only some of the views expressed in this chamber, but too often the positions of Palestinian leaders throughout this conflict. It is not really about peace negotiations. It is not really about diplomatic proposals. It is not really about Camp David or Oslo or Annapolis. It is about legitimacy. Because if one denies that the Jewish people have any genuine claim to this land, if one believes that Israel should never have come into being and should cease to exist today, then no Zionist or Israeli offer, no matter how sincere or expansive, can ever be enough. Peace itself becomes impossible, because one side’s very existence is regarded as an affront, an injustice, a blight to be erased. But that is not the motion before this House. You are being asked whether Israel has ever truly wanted peace with Palestine. And if millions of Israelis marched for peace, voted for peace, and were willing to take far-reaching and deeply painful risks for peace, then the answer to that question is self-evidently yes. Ladies and gentlemen, the tragedy of this conflict is not that peace has never been sought. The tragedy is that peace has been sought, and yet proven so painfully difficult to attain. The tragedy is that two peoples with deep and abiding ties to the same land have so often found themselves unable to reconcile their competing aspirations. That is a tragedy, and it is one that we should all hope and pray comes swiftly to an end, for the sake of all who live in that cherished land. But it is not evidence that peace was never desired. And it is certainly not evidence that an entire people spent generations engaged in an elaborate collective deception about one of their most deeply-held hopes — one that goes to the very depths of their national soul. For all its mistakes, for all its failures, for all the opportunities lost along the way, Israel has wanted peace. Jewish tradition says so. History says so. The lived experience of generations of Israelis says so. And I hope this House will say so as well. I urge you to reject the motion. Thank you very much.
73
242
22
986
283,814
The U.S. allocates $3.3 billion a year for Israel to buy American-made military equipment. That’s a lot of money! The U.S. has given Ukraine $68.2 billion in military aid since 2022. That’s *checks notes* more money. But we only ever hear about U.S. aid to Israel. Why?
109
58
11
375
17,011
This is key. Not only does the U.S. spend tens of billions a year defending other countries – it does so with 150,000+ U.S. troops. Israel, on the other hand, has no major permanent American military presence and uses U.S. aid to defend itself. U.S. aid to Israel is a bargain.
Replying to @AviMayer
But you have to know that military aid spending is different from military presence? Like in Germany, there are actually bases of the US army same goes s for South Korea. To my knowledge, this isn't the case in Israel. Although I think I know what you mean, there are differences
3
7
22
2,511
Abdul El-Sayed's antisemitic ad blaming Israel for grocery prices and healthcare costs in Michigan had nothing to say about all the other countries that benefit from tens of billions of dollars in U.S. military aid because it wasn't really about that. It was about the Jews.
The U.S. spends $8.53 billion a year on its military presence in Germany. It spends $5.69 billion a year on its presence in Japan. It spends $4.25 billion a year on its presence in South Korea. But we only ever hear about military aid to Israel. Isn't that weird?
98
68
4
408
8,514
The U.S. spends $8.53 billion a year on its military presence in Germany. It spends $5.69 billion a year on its presence in Japan. It spends $4.25 billion a year on its presence in South Korea. But we only ever hear about military aid to Israel. Isn't that weird?
664
313
55
1,741
140,779
Avi Mayer אבי מאיר retweeted
A little more than three years ago, in the days leading up to October 7, 2023, I started drafting a piece that was never published. As The Jerusalem Post’s editor-in-chief, I oversaw the paper’s daily editorials, unsigned opinion pieces expressing the view of the editorial staff on the issues of the day. Each morning, I would discuss potential topics and positions with the editor assigned to write the next day’s piece, then review, edit, and sign off on the draft prior to publication. Once a week or so, I wrote the editorial myself, generally pondering the topic for several days unless breaking news forced my hand. Atypically, in the case in question, I knew what I wanted to title the editorial before it was even written: “Ben-Gvir Must Go.” Calling for the dismissal of a senior government minister is not a decision to be taken lightly. Journalists, no matter how critical of the government they or their publications may be, rely on relationships with officials at all levels to do their jobs. I worried that we might jeopardize our reporters’ access to important sources, particularly in ministries controlled by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and his far-right Otzma Yehudit party, impairing their ability to serve the public and inform the national conversation. But I decided that we needed to take a stand nonetheless. In the months prior, we had published a series of editorials increasingly critical of Ben-Gvir and of his utter failure to do his job as the minister responsible for law enforcement. In April of that year, we said that putting him in charge of a newly formed National Guard should be a “nonstarter.” In June, we wrote that, if he continued engaging in inflammatory stunts rather than dedicating himself to fighting a wave of deadly violence sweeping through Israel’s Arab community, he ought to step down. In August, we called his racist attacks on Arab Israeli journalist Mohammed Magadli “abhorrent” and “appalling.” In September, we slammed his attempts to undermine due process and ease prison conditions for Amiram Ben-Uliel, convicted of murdering three members of a Palestinian family, including an infant. In my own weekly columns, published each Friday, I took Ben-Gvir to task for modeling racist extremism to Israel’s teens, attempting to undermine non-Orthodox conversions, helping foster an atmosphere of hostility toward Israel’s LGBT community, and doing little to prevent acts of murder among the country’s Arab citizens. “Arab lives matter, too, and unless Ben-Gvir comes to accept that and treat the murder of a boy in Rahat or Taibe as he would the murder of a boy in Karnei Shomron or Petah Tikva, he needs to make way for someone who will,” I wrote that August. But as passions swirled in the months and weeks leading up to October 7, my concerns about Ben-Gvir grew beyond his inflammatory rhetoric and abysmal performance in office. Time and again, he demonstrated contempt for the restraints that govern the exercise of state power, seeking to bend law enforcement institutions to his will and attacking those who stood in his way. At one of the most sensitive moments in Israel’s history, his conduct had become a threat to the rule of law and to the institutions he had sworn to protect. It could no longer be left up to him, I decided; we needed to call on Prime Minister Netanyahu to let him go. I planned to publish the call in the next Friday paper, the most widely read issue of the week, on October 13. Six days before it was to appear, Hamas invaded southern Israel. The horrors of October 7 gripped our collective attention for days, weeks, and then months, leaving little room — in our minds or on our pages — for anything else. The war expanded to additional fronts and we became consumed by its impact on every facet of our lives. I left the Post. The piece never ran. For three years, though, those four words — Ben-Gvir must go — have echoed through my mind. His conduct throughout this period has only strengthened the conviction behind them. Now, with days to go until Israel heads to the polls, it is time to say them out loud. Much has been made of the damage Ben-Gvir’s behavior and his very presence in the cabinet cause Israel’s reputation on a daily basis. His name has become shorthand for crude extremism, and the fact that he is a senior minister is held up as proof that his noxious views are somehow representative of Israeli society, despite his party holding only six of the Knesset’s 120 seats. As someone who engages regularly with audiences around the world, most of them predominantly Jewish and pro-Israel, I cannot recall the last time a Q&A session did not include at least one pointed question about Ben-Gvir, the way his awful statements and outlandish conduct reflect on Israel, and the shame and embarrassment he causes some of the Jewish state’s most devoted supporters. But the problem with Ben-Gvir isn’t merely that he makes Israel look bad, though he certainly does. The problem is the Israel he is trying to forge in his own image — a dark place that would be utterly unrecognizable. It is tempting to dismiss his antics as publicity stunts meant to appeal to a certain type of voter, as though he is perpetually in campaign mode. His provocations have ranged from having himself filmed taunting bound Gaza flotilla activists and Palestinian prisoners to wearing a noose lapel pin and celebrating his birthday with gallows- and gun-themed cakes to promote his effort to impose the death penalty on Palestinian terrorists; and from dancing at a conference calling for the emigration of Gaza’s Palestinian residents and the reestablishment of Israeli communities in the territory to announcing plans to surround a prison holding Palestinian security prisoners with a crocodile-filled moat. But beneath this gruesome spectacle lies a disturbing worldview that is racist, thuggish, supremacist, and cruel. An acolyte of Meir Kahane — the American-born rabbi convicted of terrorism-related charges in the U.S. and banned from the Knesset for his incitement to anti-Arab racism — Ben-Gvir has never been one to conceal his views. “We had a prophet in our midst, a leader among us, and we walk in his footsteps,” he said in 2016, referring to Kahane. Until 2020, a portrait of Baruch Goldstein — another Kahane disciple who massacred 29 Palestinian Muslim worshippers at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron in 1994 — hung on his living room wall. He had previously displayed signs reading “Expel the Arab enemy.” Also in 2016, he declared that LGBT people “have no place neither in Jerusalem nor anywhere else in the State of Israel.” He backed a suggestion by fellow extremist (and current fellow cabinet member) Bezalel Smotrich that Jewish and Arab women should be separated in maternity wards and added he would require pregnant Arab women to take loyalty oaths. And lest anyone suspect that his entry into electoral politics reflected a moderation of his views, Ben-Gvir himself dispelled the notion: “My style has changed, but the ideology is the same ideology,” he said in 2019. The form is the substance, and it has been ever since Ben-Gvir went on national television as a 19-year-old to display an emblem stolen from Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s Cadillac and crow that “we got to his car, and we’ll get to him too” (Rabin was murdered by another far-right extremist, Yigal Amir, several weeks later). Between 1993 and 2007, he was indicted on 15 criminal charges, including incitement to violence, possession of terrorist propaganda, and support for a terrorist organization. He was convicted of 13. One might argue — erroneously, in my view — that Ben-Gvir’s antics, his criminal past, his noxious views, and the damage he causes Israel’s image would be tolerable if he were good at his job. But the truth is that he has been an abject failure. As minister of national security, he has presided over a surge in violent crime not seen in decades. During his time in office, the number of homicide victims has more than doubled, from 148 in 2022 — approximately 1.5 homicides per 100,000 residents — to 309 in 2025, or approximately 3.0 per 100,000 residents. The disparity in homicide rates between Arab and Jewish Israelis widened considerably, from 10:1 to 14:1, after Ben-Gvir terminated a program created by the previous government to prevent violent crime in Arab communities, which had caused the murder rate to decline. When asked about the wave of murders among Arab Israelis, Ben-Gvir said that the “greater danger” was that it could “spill over into the Jewish sector” and that weapons held by Arab citizens “could be directed at us on command.” Meanwhile, Ben-Gvir has repeatedly sought to bend the police to his political will. He attempted to remove Tel Aviv’s police commander amid disagreements over the handling of anti-government protests, prompting the attorney general to intervene. The Supreme Court has repeatedly had to restrain his interference in operational policing decisions, particularly concerning demonstrations, and struck down a legislative provision granting him expanded authority over criminal investigations. His attempts to influence police appointments and promotions have raised serious concerns that officers’ careers could depend less on their professional judgment than on their willingness to do his bidding. Ben-Gvir’s indulgence of Jewish terrorism in the West Bank has been particularly egregious. He has characterized attacks on Palestinians as a “marginal” phenomenon — contradicting the heads of the IDF, the Shin Bet, and the Israel Police, who jointly warned about the threat they pose — and reportedly called their perpetrators “sweet kids.” As the attacks have escalated, police investigations have declined sharply. Senior officers have also faced allegations of deliberately failing to pursue Jewish terrorism suspects in an effort to curry favor with the minister. Only a third of Israelis now say they have high trust in the police. Israelis also report lower levels of personal safety, with a quarter saying they don’t feel comfortable walking alone after dark. Three-quarters of Israelis say they believe police decisions are influenced by political pressure, rather than purely professional considerations. Ben-Gvir is not a bull in a china shop; a bull cannot control its actions. He is a hooligan with a baseball bat, gleefully smashing every democratic norm, every Jewish value, every standard of decency, and every foundation of the state whose citizens he is supposed to protect. Elsewhere, a minister who had failed so resoundingly at his job, and whose tenure had caused his country so much damage, would have been sacked long ago. Having appointed Ben-Gvir to a critical and sensitive ministerial post for which he was grossly ill-suited, and having assembled a governing coalition of which Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit party is an indispensable part, Prime Minister Netanyahu has adamantly refused to let him go, going so far as to defend his continued tenure in court. That he granted a convicted criminal control over the country’s law enforcement bodies, that he has allowed himself and his government to be held hostage by him, that he has staked his political fate on his band of extremists, and that he has permitted him to run amok during one of the most fateful periods in Israel’s history will be a mark of shame on Netanyahu’s premiership. He, too, bears responsibility for Ben-Gvir’s disastrous term in office. Itamar Ben-Gvir’s record has demonstrated not merely that he is unfit for his current position, but that he should never again be entrusted with the authority of public office. His continued presence in Israel’s government poses a threat to Israeli democracy. Netanyahu may have opened the door to Ben-Gvir and his ilk, but now it falls to us to close it. When I enter the polling booth on Tuesday, my vote will be shaped not only by my opposition to Ben-Gvir and everything he stands for, but also by my conviction that he must play no role at all in Israel’s next government. I will not cast my ballot for any party willing to form a coalition with Otzma Yehudit or to enable Ben-Gvir to hold a ministerial post once again, and I urge other Israeli voters to do the same. It is time to put this ugly chapter behind us. Yes, Ben-Gvir must go. ----- Yes, Ben-Gvir Must Go Jerusalem Journal October 23, 2026 Link in the first threaded tweet
42
81
17
344
47,267
Live on @CSPAN in 20 minutes!
SUN | Jerusalem Journal (@TheJeruJournal) founder @AviMayer discusses Tuesday's Israeli elections, which will determine whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu receives another term. Watch LIVE at 9:00 am ET!
6
2,363
🎙️ I’ll be on Al Jazeera English in about 15 minutes, around 12:05 PM Israel time, to discuss the U.S.-Israel relationship and how this week’s Israeli election might impact it. Do tune in.
13
4,450
Tune in!
SUN | Jerusalem Journal (@TheJeruJournal) founder @AviMayer discusses Tuesday's Israeli elections, which will determine whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu receives another term. Watch LIVE at 9:00 am ET!
1
13
2,843
A little more than three years ago, in the days leading up to October 7, 2023, I started drafting a piece that was never published. As The Jerusalem Post’s editor-in-chief, I oversaw the paper’s daily editorials, unsigned opinion pieces expressing the view of the editorial staff on the issues of the day. Each morning, I would discuss potential topics and positions with the editor assigned to write the next day’s piece, then review, edit, and sign off on the draft prior to publication. Once a week or so, I wrote the editorial myself, generally pondering the topic for several days unless breaking news forced my hand. Atypically, in the case in question, I knew what I wanted to title the editorial before it was even written: “Ben-Gvir Must Go.” Calling for the dismissal of a senior government minister is not a decision to be taken lightly. Journalists, no matter how critical of the government they or their publications may be, rely on relationships with officials at all levels to do their jobs. I worried that we might jeopardize our reporters’ access to important sources, particularly in ministries controlled by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and his far-right Otzma Yehudit party, impairing their ability to serve the public and inform the national conversation. But I decided that we needed to take a stand nonetheless. In the months prior, we had published a series of editorials increasingly critical of Ben-Gvir and of his utter failure to do his job as the minister responsible for law enforcement. In April of that year, we said that putting him in charge of a newly formed National Guard should be a “nonstarter.” In June, we wrote that, if he continued engaging in inflammatory stunts rather than dedicating himself to fighting a wave of deadly violence sweeping through Israel’s Arab community, he ought to step down. In August, we called his racist attacks on Arab Israeli journalist Mohammed Magadli “abhorrent” and “appalling.” In September, we slammed his attempts to undermine due process and ease prison conditions for Amiram Ben-Uliel, convicted of murdering three members of a Palestinian family, including an infant. In my own weekly columns, published each Friday, I took Ben-Gvir to task for modeling racist extremism to Israel’s teens, attempting to undermine non-Orthodox conversions, helping foster an atmosphere of hostility toward Israel’s LGBT community, and doing little to prevent acts of murder among the country’s Arab citizens. “Arab lives matter, too, and unless Ben-Gvir comes to accept that and treat the murder of a boy in Rahat or Taibe as he would the murder of a boy in Karnei Shomron or Petah Tikva, he needs to make way for someone who will,” I wrote that August. But as passions swirled in the months and weeks leading up to October 7, my concerns about Ben-Gvir grew beyond his inflammatory rhetoric and abysmal performance in office. Time and again, he demonstrated contempt for the restraints that govern the exercise of state power, seeking to bend law enforcement institutions to his will and attacking those who stood in his way. At one of the most sensitive moments in Israel’s history, his conduct had become a threat to the rule of law and to the institutions he had sworn to protect. It could no longer be left up to him, I decided; we needed to call on Prime Minister Netanyahu to let him go. I planned to publish the call in the next Friday paper, the most widely read issue of the week, on October 13. Six days before it was to appear, Hamas invaded southern Israel. The horrors of October 7 gripped our collective attention for days, weeks, and then months, leaving little room — in our minds or on our pages — for anything else. The war expanded to additional fronts and we became consumed by its impact on every facet of our lives. I left the Post. The piece never ran. For three years, though, those four words — Ben-Gvir must go — have echoed through my mind. His conduct throughout this period has only strengthened the conviction behind them. Now, with days to go until Israel heads to the polls, it is time to say them out loud. Much has been made of the damage Ben-Gvir’s behavior and his very presence in the cabinet cause Israel’s reputation on a daily basis. His name has become shorthand for crude extremism, and the fact that he is a senior minister is held up as proof that his noxious views are somehow representative of Israeli society, despite his party holding only six of the Knesset’s 120 seats. As someone who engages regularly with audiences around the world, most of them predominantly Jewish and pro-Israel, I cannot recall the last time a Q&A session did not include at least one pointed question about Ben-Gvir, the way his awful statements and outlandish conduct reflect on Israel, and the shame and embarrassment he causes some of the Jewish state’s most devoted supporters. But the problem with Ben-Gvir isn’t merely that he makes Israel look bad, though he certainly does. The problem is the Israel he is trying to forge in his own image — a dark place that would be utterly unrecognizable. It is tempting to dismiss his antics as publicity stunts meant to appeal to a certain type of voter, as though he is perpetually in campaign mode. His provocations have ranged from having himself filmed taunting bound Gaza flotilla activists and Palestinian prisoners to wearing a noose lapel pin and celebrating his birthday with gallows- and gun-themed cakes to promote his effort to impose the death penalty on Palestinian terrorists; and from dancing at a conference calling for the emigration of Gaza’s Palestinian residents and the reestablishment of Israeli communities in the territory to announcing plans to surround a prison holding Palestinian security prisoners with a crocodile-filled moat. But beneath this gruesome spectacle lies a disturbing worldview that is racist, thuggish, supremacist, and cruel. An acolyte of Meir Kahane — the American-born rabbi convicted of terrorism-related charges in the U.S. and banned from the Knesset for his incitement to anti-Arab racism — Ben-Gvir has never been one to conceal his views. “We had a prophet in our midst, a leader among us, and we walk in his footsteps,” he said in 2016, referring to Kahane. Until 2020, a portrait of Baruch Goldstein — another Kahane disciple who massacred 29 Palestinian Muslim worshippers at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron in 1994 — hung on his living room wall. He had previously displayed signs reading “Expel the Arab enemy.” Also in 2016, he declared that LGBT people “have no place neither in Jerusalem nor anywhere else in the State of Israel.” He backed a suggestion by fellow extremist (and current fellow cabinet member) Bezalel Smotrich that Jewish and Arab women should be separated in maternity wards and added he would require pregnant Arab women to take loyalty oaths. And lest anyone suspect that his entry into electoral politics reflected a moderation of his views, Ben-Gvir himself dispelled the notion: “My style has changed, but the ideology is the same ideology,” he said in 2019. The form is the substance, and it has been ever since Ben-Gvir went on national television as a 19-year-old to display an emblem stolen from Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s Cadillac and crow that “we got to his car, and we’ll get to him too” (Rabin was murdered by another far-right extremist, Yigal Amir, several weeks later). Between 1993 and 2007, he was indicted on 15 criminal charges, including incitement to violence, possession of terrorist propaganda, and support for a terrorist organization. He was convicted of 13. One might argue — erroneously, in my view — that Ben-Gvir’s antics, his criminal past, his noxious views, and the damage he causes Israel’s image would be tolerable if he were good at his job. But the truth is that he has been an abject failure. As minister of national security, he has presided over a surge in violent crime not seen in decades. During his time in office, the number of homicide victims has more than doubled, from 148 in 2022 — approximately 1.5 homicides per 100,000 residents — to 309 in 2025, or approximately 3.0 per 100,000 residents. The disparity in homicide rates between Arab and Jewish Israelis widened considerably, from 10:1 to 14:1, after Ben-Gvir terminated a program created by the previous government to prevent violent crime in Arab communities, which had caused the murder rate to decline. When asked about the wave of murders among Arab Israelis, Ben-Gvir said that the “greater danger” was that it could “spill over into the Jewish sector” and that weapons held by Arab citizens “could be directed at us on command.” Meanwhile, Ben-Gvir has repeatedly sought to bend the police to his political will. He attempted to remove Tel Aviv’s police commander amid disagreements over the handling of anti-government protests, prompting the attorney general to intervene. The Supreme Court has repeatedly had to restrain his interference in operational policing decisions, particularly concerning demonstrations, and struck down a legislative provision granting him expanded authority over criminal investigations. His attempts to influence police appointments and promotions have raised serious concerns that officers’ careers could depend less on their professional judgment than on their willingness to do his bidding. Ben-Gvir’s indulgence of Jewish terrorism in the West Bank has been particularly egregious. He has characterized attacks on Palestinians as a “marginal” phenomenon — contradicting the heads of the IDF, the Shin Bet, and the Israel Police, who jointly warned about the threat they pose — and reportedly called their perpetrators “sweet kids.” As the attacks have escalated, police investigations have declined sharply. Senior officers have also faced allegations of deliberately failing to pursue Jewish terrorism suspects in an effort to curry favor with the minister. Only a third of Israelis now say they have high trust in the police. Israelis also report lower levels of personal safety, with a quarter saying they don’t feel comfortable walking alone after dark. Three-quarters of Israelis say they believe police decisions are influenced by political pressure, rather than purely professional considerations. Ben-Gvir is not a bull in a china shop; a bull cannot control its actions. He is a hooligan with a baseball bat, gleefully smashing every democratic norm, every Jewish value, every standard of decency, and every foundation of the state whose citizens he is supposed to protect. Elsewhere, a minister who had failed so resoundingly at his job, and whose tenure had caused his country so much damage, would have been sacked long ago. Having appointed Ben-Gvir to a critical and sensitive ministerial post for which he was grossly ill-suited, and having assembled a governing coalition of which Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit party is an indispensable part, Prime Minister Netanyahu has adamantly refused to let him go, going so far as to defend his continued tenure in court. That he granted a convicted criminal control over the country’s law enforcement bodies, that he has allowed himself and his government to be held hostage by him, that he has staked his political fate on his band of extremists, and that he has permitted him to run amok during one of the most fateful periods in Israel’s history will be a mark of shame on Netanyahu’s premiership. He, too, bears responsibility for Ben-Gvir’s disastrous term in office. Itamar Ben-Gvir’s record has demonstrated not merely that he is unfit for his current position, but that he should never again be entrusted with the authority of public office. His continued presence in Israel’s government poses a threat to Israeli democracy. Netanyahu may have opened the door to Ben-Gvir and his ilk, but now it falls to us to close it. When I enter the polling booth on Tuesday, my vote will be shaped not only by my opposition to Ben-Gvir and everything he stands for, but also by my conviction that he must play no role at all in Israel’s next government. I will not cast my ballot for any party willing to form a coalition with Otzma Yehudit or to enable Ben-Gvir to hold a ministerial post once again, and I urge other Israeli voters to do the same. It is time to put this ugly chapter behind us. Yes, Ben-Gvir must go. ----- Yes, Ben-Gvir Must Go Jerusalem Journal October 23, 2026 Link in the first threaded tweet
42
81
17
344
47,267
🎙️ I will be on Al Jazeera English in about 15 minutes, around 1:35 PM Israel time, to discuss the situation in the West Bank. Do tune in.
8
4,431
Abdul El-Sayed – who brought in Hasan “I hate America” Piker to campaign with him and whose family has ties to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, a designated terrorist group – has the chutzpah to say who is and is not America’s friend? How rich.
54
32
1
228
9,164
My pleasure! Thank you for having me.
Thank you @AviMayer for speaking with our @OUAdvocacy mission with US Catholic leaders.
10
3,087
I am horrified by the attack on my dear friend @FleurHassanN and am relieved that she and everyone else in the car is okay. The lawlessness in the West Bank harms Israelis and Palestinians alike. It must come to an end.
132
63
14
265
37,132
🎙️ I’ll be on Israel’s Channel 13 News in about 15 minutes, around 3 PM local time, to discuss the stalemate between the U.S. and Iran and Trump’s endorsement of Netanyahu for prime minister. Do tune in.
2
8
4,384
Thank you to Austrian Ambassador to Israel @AradBenkoe and @BenkoeP for a wonderful evening celebrating Austria’s National Day and 70 years of Austrian-Israeli relations! Einen schönen Nationalfeiertag! 🇦🇹🇮🇱
1
3
28
2,975
A 15-year-old Israeli student has been killed and 20 students and teachers wounded in an explosion reportedly caused by unexploded ordnance near the Israel-Lebanon border.
3
10
70
7,222
The wounded are a group of schoolchildren and teachers who were on a field trip; helicopters en route. (Ynet)
🔴 BREAKING: At least 12 people are wounded, some seriously, after an explosion on Israel's northern border.
2
11
33
7,065