There are few more polarizing people in the Jewish world today than Itamar Ben-Gvir. The firebrand national security minister of Israel attracts attention, protests, headlines, and controversy wherever he goes. This week, he came to America and brought all of that with him to Florida, New York, and Washington. Many find him abhorrent and categorically reject comments he has made, policies he has pursued, and positions he espouses. Others recognize he has some extreme views but believe he has the courage to make changes necessary for greater security and agree with much of his platform, enough that they have given him a mandate in the current government coalition.
Ben-Gvir’s team expressed interest in his speaking at our shul, which I immediately declined. This was a very simple and clear-cut calculation. I have learned that if hosting someone will attract significant controversy, potentially from within the community and almost certainly from without, if it will draw negative attention, headlines, become time-consuming and can even alienate and offend a fair number of shul members, it simply is not worth it.
Some people who read the above paragraph are undoubtedly shocked and disturbed to think we would even consider giving him a platform. And no doubt some who read the same paragraph are offended and troubled that I would attempt to deny the BRS community from hearing an elected Israeli minister whose views they strongly agree with or think at least people should be open to. Both groups are likely disappointed that I am not using this space to take a definitive position on Ben-Gvir. If you want to formulate your own opinion on him or confirm what you already think, there has been plenty written about him, including a large number of articles revolving around his trip that you can read. I have nothing new to add and that isn’t my goal in this space.
While we declined the opportunity to publicly host Ben-Gvir, I did accept the request to meet with him privately. We sat together for almost an hour in my office, in which he shared the accomplishments that he is proud of and what remains on his agenda to achieve, explained what he would do to bring the hostages home, shared how he regrets some things he has said and done in his past, and talked about projects he is working on now. I used the opportunity to both respectfully challenge him on things I find objectionable and also encourage him on what I think he could do better or more of.
I had not shared with anyone that we were meeting, neither before or after, and he told me that he hadn’t either. Nevertheless, several articles about his trip mentioned in passing that we had met, which elicited two emails respectfully questioning my judgment in having done so, arguing that the meeting alone endorses and supports a person who should be isolated and marginalized.
The correspondence raised some interesting questions: Should private meetings be held to the same standard as giving a public platform? Should we meet with those we don’t just disagree with but find objectionable? If a journalist can meet with just about anyone because they are doing an interview or bringing a story to the public, should communal leaders not meet with controversial or objectionable public officials in order to better be informed and to share feedback and criticism? If we do have a red line of who we are willing to talk to or meet with, where should the line be set, what are the criteria to be excluded or outside the line? If you wouldn’t meet with someone you object to, should they not be allowed to enter the campus, daven in our minyan?
After considering these questions, I don’t regret privately meeting Ben-Gvir, for several reasons. Firstly, he is the democratically elected National Security Minister of the State of Israel. Love him or hate him, the position and title he carries, and representing the Israeli citizens who elected him, I believe make him deserving of an audience and conversation. Secondly, I have a relatively broad red line when it comes to fellow Jews, particularly leaders, who want to meet and have a conversation. (That is not to suggest that I have the time or ability to meet every non-BRS member who asks for a meeting.) If someone wants to meet, not for a photo-op or publicity but for a genuine open conversation, why wouldn’t I want to take advantage of the opportunity to listen and learn and to influence and impact, particularly if it was someone I have differences with or even oppose?
I believe this applies to all those to the right and left of me politically and religiously, in Israel or America. I mean this sincerely, and it applies to even the worst actors in politics. I abhor everything Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar stand for and their stances on Israel are dangerous if not outright evil. Of course they would never be welcomed to give a speech at BRS, but if they wanted to meet with me privately, why would I pass on the opportunity to tell elected members of Congress exactly how I feel about their positions and actions? Private dialogue and respectful debate will go much further in bringing change than shunning or boycotting.
The Torah describes that Yosef’s brothers hated him to the point that v’lo yachlu dabro l’shalom.” The Ibn Ezra explains, “v’lo yachlu dabro l’shalom – afilu l’shalom.” It isn’t that they just couldn’t talk about the issues they disagreed about. It isn’t just that they didn’t want to be close, loving brothers. It isn’t just that they couldn’t debate respectfully. “Afilu l’shalom” – they couldn’t even give each other a shalom aleichem. The hatred and intolerance had grown so deep that they couldn’t stand to even extend greetings to one another or to be in a room together.
Rav Yehonasan Eibshitz in his Tiferes Yonasan has an additional insight. When we disagree with people, we withdraw from them and stop speaking to them. We see them and paint them as “the other,” different than us and apart from us. As our communication breaks down, the dividers rise up, stronger and stronger and we can’t find a way to break through them.
Certainly, there are important disagreements and no doubt there are statements and policies that people will find objectionable about others. But there is no doubt in my mind that given the opportunity, it is better, healthier, and more productive, to communicate directly, attempt to influence, and find common ground, than sow further divide. I respect anyone’s right to disagree, I just hope they would communicate it directly, instead of boycotting a conversation.
