Could Ben Gvir be Prime Minister of Israel?

Writer: Dr. Ahmed Rafiq Awad

The Israeli society has gone through successive stages of social, political, and intellectual transformation. It began with secular Ashkenazi national collective socialism, then transitioned, in the late 1970s, to a secular national right, before rapidly shifting towards chauvinistic right-wing tendencies. It seems that the latest stage is one from which there is clearly no return.

These social, political, and intellectual transitions have their objective reasons, both internally and externally. The latest phase that Israel is experiencing has been characterized by internal and external wars, and by attempts to erode, hollow out, and empty the institutions and bodies that built Israel, reshaping them to fit the ideas and directions of the new elites.

The current extreme right-wing elites present a particular kind of Judaism; a simple and popular Judaism that turns its back on compromises, on middle-ground solutions, and even on managing and calming conflicts. It is a simple Judaism, yet alluring and attractive, relying on the astonishing power of land ownership and reshaping the region, through a deep belief in superiority, entitlement, and preference.

These elites do not show extensive knowledge of the world, nor a comprehensive vision of conflicts, interests, and alliances. They replace global language with a religious language that has a singular meaning, and they substitute peace with the surroundings for peace within, not hesitating to use any means, no matter how racist and unethical, to ensure their survival and continuity.

What is even more dangerous is that its messianic tendencies justify all violence, or involve it in violence as a necessity. In other words, I believe that Israel has reached a point of no return: extremism leads to greater extremism, and rigidity leads to even more rigidity. Rigidity in messianic thought is usually an important sign of achieving ultimate meanings, purposes, and goals, and this is what we have seen in similar movements and parties in the present and the past.

Based on all of the above, the phenomenon of Itamar Ben Gvir represents, in my opinion, the new face of Israel. The man embodies populist leadership in all its facets, that leadership we have seen in historical experiences. He has a certain charisma, is eloquent, and seems to genuinely believe in his ideas and is passionate about them. He is active and proactive, possesses a wide imagination, and is capable of proposing surprising solutions, as well as mobilizing and inciting; he also has a popular language that is easily absorbed and internalized.

Ben Gvir relies on extremely simple and powerful religious interpretations that justify superiority, distinction, possession, and expansion, without questioning, and without moral sensitivity, along with all that this may bring in terms of aggression or even disasters.

Ben Gvir is a man who discards the old Zionism and brings forth another, more violent, reckless, and impulsive Zionism; a Zionism that he nourishes with religious justification and arrogance based on power and spiritual fullness. For this very reason, his ideas spread even among individuals in the Israeli army, as they offer them an easy, straightforward, and actionable formula.

These ideas have become widespread, no longer on the margins, and no one is ashamed of them anymore. Expansion is a divine matter, killing is a preemptive act for the future, displacement is a historical correction, undermining the Supreme Court is weakening the game of democracy, the Torah is above the law, and the community is above the state. Ideas that were not previously a fundamental part of public discourse have now become part of it.

Therefore, the phenomenon of Ben Gvir is not transient, but rather ongoing and capable of growth and dominance; if not during his time, then perhaps after him. The question here is not only whether the man can reach the presidency of the government, but whether Israeli society is fundamentally heading towards an environment that makes his rise possible.

Today, Ben Gvir is projected to secure eight to ten seats, according to opinion polls, and he could potentially become prime minister in several scenarios.

Firstly, due to the inability of the major parties to make decisive choices, which indicates the depth of divisions and differences within Israeli society, Ben Gvir could become a solution in forming a coalition government that may be weak or threatened, but he could do as Naftali Bennett did when he formed a government despite having only six seats.

Secondly, if a surprise occurs, such as Ben Gvir surpassing other parties like Likud or Yesh Atid or others, this possibility, although weak or moderate, could become plausible.

Thirdly, Ben Gvir may not be able to become prime minister this time, but he could do so in future instances. The Zionism he promotes is extreme and enticing, especially since the international and regional circumstances are favorable for that.

On the contrary, it can be said that the man does not receive international acceptance, and his election as Prime Minister will lead to Israel being further isolated. Additionally, his Eastern origins may be, in the eyes of some elites, a factor preventing him from assuming this position, even though Israeli society is increasingly becoming more Eastern, which carries its own risks for the form and content of the state.

In short, the possibility of Ben Gvir assuming the presidency of the government today may seem unacceptable or distant, but it could become a reality in the near future. When extremism becomes part of the mainstream, the question is no longer just: Will the extremist come to power? But the more difficult question becomes: When does his arrival to power become a normal occurrence?