As part of a week-long tour on the U.S., Minister of National Security and leader of the Otzma Yehudit party, Itamar Ben-Gvir, was invited to speak at the Young Israel of Woodmere on April 26. And then he wasn’t.
It’s hard to say what caused the shul’s change of heart. Its executive director hasn’t responded to inquiries. Speculation of a catalyst has ranged from the fact that the senior rabbi recently lost a parent and was sitting shiva, to concern about potential unrest and disruptions based on reaction to Ben Gvir’s earlier U.S. appearances, to a widely circulated Facebook post critical of the Israeli minister by journalist and former synagogue member Robby Berman.
Berman began his post with an emphatic call to action using all caps: “WALK OUT ON THE YOUNG ISRAEL OF WOODMERE.” He went on to lament how “shocked and saddened” he was that the synagogue of his youth had invited Ben Gvir to speak from its podium, listing a slew of reasons why he adamantly disagreed. He noted that Rabbi Hershel Billet, former Young Israel of Woodmere rabbi who was “a tremendous Zionist and a major supporter and defender of Israel,” years ago had refused to publicly welcome Rabbi Meir Kahane because of his views, noting how quickly the values Rabbi Billet had tried to instill had eroded.
Of course, for every argument why Ben Gvir should not have been invited to speak there is an equally compelling one – sometimes using remarkably similar logic flipped on its head – as to why the decision to invite was perfectly reasonable. For instance, one Israeli resident, Nachum Lamm, noted that one of his rebbeim, the late Rav Simcha Krauss of the Young Israel of Hillcrest, who “was no one’s idea of a right-winger,” would regularly have Rabbi Kahane speak at the shul and even respectfully sit next to him. He went on to comment, ”We are sorely lacking such open-mindedness today.”
The two camps can generally be broken into those who say Itamar Ben Gvir is just too extreme, does not represent Torah values, and platforming him does us no good – vs. those who believe that as someone whose list (when combined with Betzalel Smotrich’s National Religious Party, which ran in tandem with Ben Gvir’s) garnered over a million votes in the last election and is on track to do even better next time around, he should not be ostracized because he clearly has a message which resonates with a substantial portion of Israel’s voters.
Then there are those who may disagree with his views but do not like the optics of rescinding an invitation once it has been offered, since it smacks of cancel culture.
The Jewish Press sought the opinions of both those in favor of and opposed to a voice being given to Ben Gvir at U.S. synagogues. Along with some forceful views were a mixture of nuanced thought and unique perspectives as the topic took on a life of its own.
Rabbi Elie Mischel, in favor of allowing Ben Gvir to speak, said that “no one is obligated to invite him to speak in their shul.” His issue was the canceling of the speech, “specifically the people who pressured the shul to cancel.” He added, “The tactics used against Ben Gvir on his recent trip to the U.S. were shameful, with Jewish protestors screaming at him in New York City streets while standing alongside pro-Hamas antisemites. Is this rally the kind of community we want to be? One that joins our enemies in silencing elected officials of the Jewish state?”
Nachum Lamm is also opposed to cancellations and limits on free speech, noting in an email response that “The man represents ‘a lot’ of Israelis.” He went on to rhetorically ask if “Perhaps there is a ‘reason’ he and his views are so popular?” Lamm made the observation that there is so much less of a reaction to Ben Gvir in Israel than anywhere else. “Seeing him in action, with people far from his views interacting with him in a friendly manner, makes the extreme reaction he faces elsewhere all the more strange.”
Lamm followed with an anecdote, remarking that during the past elections, a reporter from America’s National Public Radio only wanted to know about Ben Gvir, “who at the time was not even first on a minor list.” That’s when he realized Ben Gvir “is going to be whipping boy number one for the world.” He admitted that ever since, it has colored his own reaction to the treatment of Ben Gvir.
On the other hand, Dr. Elana Stein Hain said, “There must be halachic and moral boundaries. Kahanism must never be equated with Torah Judaism.” She said that there are “Religious Zionist leaders who are just as aware of the realities of Palestinian terrorism but who resist Ben Gvir’s extremism. We must support them during this challenging time rather than undermining their efforts.” It is her belief that inviting a shul speaker is “more than simply airing a viewpoint” and will likely result in material support for him and his ideology.
In his Rationalist Judaism Substack post on the topic, Rabbi Natan Slifkin, also opposed to Minister Ben Gvir, echoes some of the thoughts of Dr. Stein Hain:
“There are plenty of people in Israel, including right-wing religious Zionists, who are against Ben Gvir. The idea that anyone who opposes him is a ‘leftist’ is simply absurd. Rabbi Slifkin then veers down a pragmatic new path, asking, “Why are many right wing Israelis against Ben Gvir? In some cases this is because he is immoral and perverts Torah values. But in other cases it’s for an entirely different reason. It’s because they think he is a threat to national security, a danger to the Jewish people.”
Rabbi Slifkin posits that the Left’s naivety, delusions and reckless risk taking are paralleled by those of Ben Gvir. “There’s nothing that Ben Gvir ‘gets’ about Palestinians that other people don’t get. The question is, what should Israel actually do?” He goes on to write, “There’s a common fallacy that since the Left was wrong and the Right was right, then the more Right you are, the more right you are.” He equates it to a logical fallacy that since tzniyut involves covering up parts of the body, the burqa must be the ultimate expression of tzniyut.
He continues with a series of warnings as it relates to Ben Gvir’s world view, saying that “Believing in the luxury of unlimited ‘Jewish Strength’ is naïve and dangerous. We simply cannot assume that G-d is always going to help us; He has made no such assurance. Israel is strong, but not invincible.”
He posits that Israel cannot go it alone. “Being aware of the irrational and pathological global hatred of Israel does not mean that we have the luxury of thumbing our noses at the entire world, as Ben Gvir and his supporters like to do.” He cites the example of a modern fighter jet requiring 15,000 components and the impossibility of Israel ever being able to produce all of them by itself, then mentions “the rather large matter of the economy, which also depends upon good relations with other countries.”
Some have argued that whatever one thinks of Ben Gvir, since he’s a minister who has much support in the Israeli electorate, shuls in the U.S. should let him speak. Responding to this point, Professor Chaim Saiman said, “In a world where Yesh Atid (to say nothing of Labor/Meretz) are in the government, are they invited to American Orthodox shuls? Of course not.”
He adds that there are few places with more restrictive boundaries on who can speak than an Orthodox shul. “It is not a ‘neutral forum’ but a place where speaking is understood as a pretty strong signal of endorsement that a person is ‘within the machine [camp].’” He considers Ben Gvir to be “a provocateur who is attempting to test and move the lines and boundaries. When one tries to move the boundary and the move is not accepted, I don’t think you can cry ‘cancel culture.’
“The argument against cancel culture has its place in forums that pride themselves as open and then suddenly closed due to some new fad that now perceives a previously acceptable social practice as a slight. This is how/where the term originated. For example, at a law school, I think pretty much anyone who plays a significant role in the legal/political system should be invited to speak. But you can’t cry “cancel culture” in a forum that is perpetually concerned with maintaining its boundaries.
“For example, there are people in position of authority in Israel right now on the Left, such as Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miar and Chief Justice Yitzhak Amit, but it’s hard to imagine the same Orthodox shuls that invited Ben Gvir would invite them to speak.”
For his part, Ben Gvir appears to relish all the controversy. Shortly after protestors near Yale University hurled epithets and bottles at him, he sat down with reporters from the Daily Wire and said, “If I wasn’t so influential, they wouldn’t have cared. They think they can use violence to defeat us.”
He then rattled off recent changes that he has been responsible for in Israel.
“I made reform in gun carrying laws in Israel. Before I came into office there were 8,000 gun licenses and after I came there were 200,000. And it works. Jewish lives are being saved. In the jails of Israel there was a complete summer camp… I changed that, I stopped the summer camps, I took everything from them: the radio, the TVs, the education.” He noted that the Palestinians are so angry at him because of all the changes he has made “and that’s why Hamas tried to assassinate me five times.” In classic Ben Gvir style, though, he was quick to also stress, “It doesn’t scare me. I am saying my truth and I will walk with my truth. I will keep saying it and I will fight for it.”
