The Ben-Gvir Controversy: A Provocateur Who Delivered Meaningful Reforms

Peloni

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. Ben-Gvir – Own work, CC0, Wikipedia

In a recent interview on TOV Channel, Dr. Pini Yehezkeli, a retired Deputy Commissioner in the Israeli Police, shares some important reflections on the achievements and limitations of Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir.  Yehezkeli’s comments are particularly relevant in light of the recent ascorbic diatribe penned by Amit Segal castigating Ben Gvir as being “A Threat to Israel”.  In that essay, which I encourage people to read and consider, Segal argues that Ben-Gvir has had some successes, but that his greatest achievement has been in his ability to market those achievements beyond a fair recounting.

Relevantly, it truly does appear that Min. Ben-Gvir stands chief among Israelis that everyone loves to denounce, as a Nazi, as a braggard, as a danger to the state, and a threat to democracy, yet in all of these depictions of Ben Gvir as the world’s favorite boogey man, which would agree with Segal’s stating that “another government with Ben-Gvir in a meaningful role would be a serious disaster for the country,” they honestly minimize or ignore entirely the very significant reforms which Ben-Gvir has brought to the Ministry of National Security.  As Yehezkeli explains, Ben Gvir is probably the only one who could succeed in making these changes, and what is notable about Yehezkeli in making such a statement in contrast to the condemnations of Segal and other significant voices on both sides of the political stream in Israel and on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, is that as a retired Deputy Police Commissioner, Yehezkeli speaks from a position of knowledge and introspection which could only come from having spent his life within the very organization which Ben Gvir has been attempting to reform.

Yehezkeli explains that Ben-Gvir has easily been the most important police minister in Israel since Shlomo Hillel, whose reforms in the ministry during the 1970’s led to a vast expansion of the ministry from the limited police duties which preceded his term.  Ironically, as Hillel came to expand the authority of the ministry, the attempt to sideline Ben-Gvir by the Leftist High Court has led to his being isolated from exerting any influence over specific investigations which Segal holds as being a mark of Ben-Gvir’s failures.

Indeed, Yehezkeli notes that, despite lacking direct operational authority over the police as the head of the Ministry, Ben-Gvir has nonetheless accomplished successful reforms which previous ministers could not. From the security squads in cities, to the return of security to Jewish communities, to the ability of some residents of Beersheba to receive personal weapons, to the changes in the Prison Service, Ben-Gvir is ending on a high of enormous structural changes within his ministry, which was all the authority which was left to him by the High Court.

In the interview, Yehezkeli  specifically addresses the increase in crime, particularly in Arab society which Segal cited as one of Ben-Gvir’s great failures.  Noting that Arab criminal organizations became stronger after Jewish criminal organizations were weakened, Yehezkeli explains that the steady flow of govt funds emanating from the Bennett-Lapid “change government” allowed for these criminal organizations to significantly gain strength. He also explains that by themselves, the police do not have access to some of the tools needed to crack down on these criminal gangs.  Notably, Yehezkeli’s comments fail to address the reality that Arab mob violence is separately motivated along the lines of tribal structure inherent in Arab society everywhere, which is not something which Israeli police can or should be required to address.

In any event, however, Yehezkeli’s praise of Ben-Gvir’s many successes under his limited authority did not hold him back from addressing Ben-Gvir’s manner and its diplomatic consequences.  Indeed, Yehezkeli challenges that there exists a general lack of respect afforded to Ben-Gvir by many who also refuse to show little regard for his important reforms.  He emphasizes that this is a conseuence of Ben-Gvir’s provocative nature and the fact that his behavior lacks any semblance of the usual decorum associated with a govt minister. Nonetheless, Yehezkeli counters that Ben-Gvir would never have been as successful in implementing his reforms had he not been armed with this same confrontational nature which enabled him to overcome the significant opposition facing him from the security establishment. Yehezkeli concludes that Ben Gvir’s notorious behavior has been the mark which made his tenure so successful, but that it is also why he leads a party of 14 instead of having a much larger base which might have been expected if he could achieve the same goals with a more conservative demeanor.  Something which comes to mind is also whether the diplomatic furor which is routinely raised against Ben-Gvir is truly related to his behavior rather than the actual reforms Ben-Gvir has put in place.

Ultimately, Yehezkeli reflections depicts a far more complicated picture of Ben-Gvir than the caricature which his critics prefer to present him. There is certainly room to criticize Ben-Gvir’s conduct, his rhetoric, and some of the diplomatic costs associated with his confrontational manner, and Yehezkeli does not in any way shy away from doing exactly this. Yet, it remains equally difficult to dismiss Ben-Gvir’s record of structural reforms which has made Ben-Gvir one of the most consequential ministers to hold the National Defense portfolio in decades, as assessed by Yehezkeli, a former senior police commander with firsthand knowledge of the difficulties in doing so.

Hence, whether one might find Ben-Gvir’s methods as being justified or not, his tenure cannot fairly be evaluated solely through the controversies surrounding his personality nor through the investigations over which he had limited or no authority. The more difficult and perhaps more honest conclusion is that the very qualities which make Ben-Gvir so objectionable to many of his opponents may also be the qualities that enabled him to accomplish changes that more conventional ministers were unwilling or unable to make.

In the end, we might simply find ourselves asking what might be the more important aspect of the Minister of the Police, the opinion held by others about his suitability for the post or his ability to actually make Israelis safer in a time of war?