Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s national security minister, has long thrived on provocation. In a recent video posted online, he was seen mocking detained activists bound and blindfolded after a flotilla bound for Gaza was intercepted, waving an Israeli flag over them and declaring: “We are the landlords.” The footage, widely condemned internationally and reported by Times UK, triggered diplomatic backlash, including a ban on his entry to France and strong criticism from Western officials and religious leaders. Yet at home, his political influence continues to grow.
The incident is the latest in a pattern of deliberate confrontation that has defined the rise of Itamar Ben-Gvir, a figure who has moved from the fringes of Israeli extremism into one of the most powerful cabinet positions in the country. French authorities reacted by barring him from entry, while senior figures in the UK and United States described his conduct as disgraceful and damaging to Israel’s international standing. Even within Israel’s political establishment, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and senior cabinet ministers, there has been unease over his behaviour, with some warning that he is damaging the country’s global image.
But for Ben-Gvir, controversy is not a liability—it is political currency. He has built his career on rejecting diplomatic restraint and embracing a hardline vision of Israeli sovereignty and security. His supporters view his actions as evidence of strength in the face of international criticism, while opponents see a deliberate erosion of democratic norms and restraint. His ability to dominate headlines has only strengthened his position in a rapidly polarising political landscape.
Born in 1976, Itamar Ben-Gvir grew up in a relatively moderate household but became radicalised as a teenager during the first Palestinian intifada. He joined the youth wing of the extremist Kach movement, founded by Rabbi Meir Kahane, and quickly rose through its ranks. His early political activity placed him firmly outside Israel’s mainstream, and he was at one point considered too extreme for military service, receiving an exemption from the Israel Defence Forces due to concerns about his political views.
Over the years, Ben-Gvir accumulated multiple criminal convictions, including charges related to incitement and support for extremist organisations. He remained associated with Kach even after it was banned and designated as a terrorist organisation by several countries. His notoriety grew in the 1990s when he appeared in a televised incident displaying a stolen emblem from the car of assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, warning that access to the prime minister’s vehicle was symbolic of deeper political reach. The remark later gained infamy after Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing extremist.
Despite this background, Ben-Gvir gradually entered mainstream politics by rebranding his movement into Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power), shifting rhetoric from overtly racial slogans to language focused on “security” and “counterterrorism.” This strategic repositioning allowed him to move from the political margins into the Knesset, Israel’s parliament, as part of alliances engineered within the right-wing bloc. His rise accelerated when electoral deals brought his party into coalition arrangements that strengthened Benjamin Netanyahu’s governing base.
His eventual appointment as national security minister gave him control over policing and prisons, marking a dramatic transformation from fringe activist to state authority. Since then, Itamar Ben-Gvir has used his position to advance an uncompromising agenda on law enforcement, security policy, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He has advocated for harsher penalties for Palestinian attackers, including mandatory death sentences, and has repeatedly visited contested religious sites in Jerusalem in ways that critics say inflame tensions.
One of the most controversial aspects of his career has been his repeated visits to the compound known to Jews as the Temple Mount and to Muslims as Al-Aqsa, a site already central to long-standing regional tensions. During these visits, he has been seen asserting Israeli sovereignty in symbolic and highly charged gestures, actions that critics argue undermine fragile status quo arrangements governing the site.
His supporters argue that such actions reflect long-suppressed Israeli assertions of sovereignty and security, particularly after repeated cycles of violence. His critics, however, including many within Israel’s own security establishment, warn that he is deliberately destabilising an already volatile environment for political gain.
International reaction to his recent video was swift and severe. Western governments condemned the treatment of detainees shown in the footage, while France went further by imposing a travel ban. Religious leaders also intervened, with senior rabbis describing his actions as a moral desecration. Even some of his coalition partners publicly distanced themselves, signalling rare internal friction within Israel’s governing bloc.
Yet politically, Ben-Gvir remains ascendant. His support base is drawn largely from segments of Israeli society that feel alienated from the secular political elite, particularly working-class Mizrahi Jews and younger voters who have grown up amid prolonged conflict. Polling suggests his party continues to hold a stable bloc of parliamentary support, making him a key player in coalition politics.
The broader concern among critics is not only Ben-Gvir’s ideology, but his institutional influence. As national security minister, he has authority over police appointments and operational direction, leading to accusations that he has politicised law enforcement and weakened institutional independence. Reports from security officials suggest growing tension between his ministry and traditional security agencies such as the IDF and Shin Bet.
Some analysts argue that this reflects a deeper shift in Israeli politics, where the far right is no longer peripheral but embedded within the machinery of the state. That shift, according to critics, is reshaping norms around policing, military conduct, and civil liberties. Supporters counter that these changes are necessary to confront terrorism and restore deterrence.
The implications extend beyond domestic politics. Israel’s international standing has become increasingly polarised, with allies expressing concern over the direction of its internal governance. Diplomatic tensions have intensified as Ben-Gvir continues to make statements and take actions that foreign governments see as provocative and destabilising.
In his own framing, however, Itamar Ben-Gvir represents a break from what he calls a weak and overly cautious establishment. He argues that Israel must project strength without apology, even if it risks diplomatic isolation. This worldview resonates strongly with his base, even as it alarms critics who fear long-term damage to Israel’s democratic institutions.
The Times UK report, originally authored by Matthew Gould, former British ambassador to Israel, places Ben-Gvir’s rise in a longer historical arc of Israeli politics moving from marginal extremism to governmental authority. It suggests that what was once unthinkable—the integration of hard-right figures with criminal and extremist backgrounds into senior cabinet positions—has now become a defining feature of Israel’s political landscape.
As elections approach and coalition dynamics shift, Ben-Gvir’s influence is unlikely to diminish. Whether he remains a disruptive force within government or becomes an even more central figure depends on Israel’s evolving electorate. What is already clear is that a politician once dismissed as a fringe agitator now holds a position that shapes law enforcement, national security, and the country’s international image.
For supporters, he embodies uncompromising strength in a hostile region. For critics, he represents a warning sign of democratic backsliding. Between those two interpretations lies a country increasingly divided over what kind of state Israel should become, and how far its politics are willing to go in the name of security.
