06 May MEETING WITH BEN-GVIR

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 undoubtably 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 judgement 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 objectional
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.