With Netanyahu, But Not the Old Guard: Ben-Gvir’s Ambitions and the Obstacle Which His Past Performance Presents

Peloni

Ben Gvir on the Temple Mount. Screengrab via Youtube

In an extensive interview in Hebrew with Channel 14’s Rivka Shurek, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir confidently defended his record in his ministerial actions, attacked the failures of the previous security establishment leaders, and laid out an ambitious agenda should he succeed in becoming defense minister in the next govt.

Describing his nearly four years in office as “a very big success,” reporting that he had fulfilled some 80 percent of the goals he set for himself at the outset of being named as National Security Minister in the current govt. He specifically drew attention to his his crackdown on the lavish Israeli prisons conditions, the creation of a National Guard, the expansion of civilian security squads, firearms reform, demolitions in the Negev, and higher police salaries. He acknowledged that crime in Arab society remains a major unresolved problem, noting that legal restrictions had limited the police requiring the Shin Bet to be brought into assist.

Ben-Gvir was equally dismissive of criticism being raised by former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett regarding Arab violence, highlighting the fact that Bennett’s government had manufactured “quiet” in the Arab community by subsidizing its criminal organizations and allowing them to flourish. While stating further that violent Arab attacks had fallen by more than half compared with the Bennett period, Ben-Gvir attributed the change to his policy of  employing “a hard hand and zero tolerance.”

Ben-Gvir’s demand to become defense minister was a central theme throughout the interview. When asked why Netanyahu might choose him over figures such as Brig. Gen. Ofer Winter or Moshe Feiglin, he pointed to his own “proven experience” in his current post and argued that military rank alone should not qualify someone to lead Israel’s defense establishment. Referring to the period before October 7, he noted that he had repeatedly called for strikes and targeted killings in Gaza while senior military figures insisted that Hamas had been deterred. Consequently, he argued that what is needed is a defense minister who has been “outside the military conception.”

He also noted the important challenges which will be faced in the next govt concerning Judea and Samaria and Gaza. As defense minister, he emphasized that he would dismantle the Palestinian Authority, seize its weapons, expand Israeli control, and promote his already revealed policy of voluntary emigration. “We need to encourage emigration,” he said, arguing that Israel should return throughout the territory because “this is our country, this is our home.” He indicated that hundreds of thousands of Arabs in the PA territories could leave within a year if the government devoted sufficient resources, organization, and international public relations to the task.

Relevantly, Ben-Gvir placed significant criticism on Netanyahu for failing to advance this agenda far enough in the current govt, suggesting that this was “because Netanyahu didn’t want it enough.” He argued that if Netanyahu had truly focused his efforts on promoting emigration, “we would already be after 100,000 Gazans” leaving.

Despite this rebuke of the Prime Minister, Ben-Gvir described his personal relationship with Netanyahu as being exceptionally close, noting that the two had spent hundreds of hours together in private discussions and that Netanyahu has privately praised his achievements. Admitting that Netanyahu’s refusal to publicly appear with him during election periods “hurts,” Ben-Gvir maintained that such personal slights would not interfer with his serving in the next Netanyahu government.

The sharpest warning of the interview addressed the possibility of Netanyahu bringing former IDF chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot into the government. Ben-Gvir explained that such a move would be “a huge mistake” and emphatically declared that “I will not be in the government as a prop or as a statistic.” and further challenged that he would not remain in the govt to merely hold some meaningless portfolio while Eisenkot was left to determined government policy based around a “center-left” security and legal agenda .

Ultimately, Ben-Gvir challenges that the outcome of the current election cycle must be understood to be something of a test of his political strength. He explains that voters must offer him enough support so that neither Netanyahu nor anyone else might be in a position to exclude him from the government. He explains further that the most formative aspect of his hopes for the election are to remain “with Netanyahu, together with Netanyahu, in Netanyahu’s government—but without the people of the old conception.”

To be certain, while recalling Eisenkot’s previous failures of supporting Netanyahu’s efforts with respect to Gaza and Lebanon while he was part of the War cabinet in the year following October 7, it would be an utter calamity to see Eisenkot named as the next Defense Minister.  Nonetheless, it should be expected that Netanyahu will be pressed by the US against choosing Ben-Gvir for such a post.  He has produced significant and important reforms in his current role as the National Security Minister while gaining the enmity and derision of many, both in Israel and over seas for his dogmatic and outspoken commentaries while doing so.  Yet this record of achieving what seems impossible, along with Ben-Gvir’s stated policy focus around Trump’s own call for voluntary emigration are ironically to be the greatest obstacle to him likely being named as the next Defense Minister, even if Netanhyahu might want him in such a role which is honestly questionable.