This is awkward. I agree with Itamar Ben-Gvir

For English speakers, let me bring you into the loop. I just spent 20 minutes listening to Itamar Ben-Gvir – let’s call it –being “interviewed” by two belligerent interlocutors, @yanircozin and @sefiova, who have the Eight AM slot on @GLZRadio army radio. Like virtually all Israeli radio and television presenters, they can’t wait for an answer before cutting off their guests. They think journalism is about bullying their interviewees or tripping them up. 

I found myself indignant on Ben-Gvir’s behalf because of their approach. You invite someone on your stage -- give them the courtesy of letting them respond to your questions. Don’t invite them if you can’t tolerate their style or think they serially obfuscate.

It is no secret that as a classical Jabotinsky liberal, I find Ben-Gvir’s platform repugnant. His history and ideology do not, however, invalidate his positions on every issue.

Ben-Gvir is right to favor the death penalty for convicted terrorists. He makes a cogent argument that the death penalty laws already on the books have, in practice, not empowered judges to impose capital punishment. So this is a discussion that we need to have. 

And after what happened on Black Saturday, October 7, any claim that the death penalty would paint our enemies into a corner is risible. Certainly, the death penalty should not be off the table for a defendant convicted of the premeditated killing of multiple victims. 

I accept that capital punishment may not be a deterrent, certainly not for political or Islamist-inspired terrorism. That said, to my knowledge, no executed killer has ever killed again, nor has anyone ever been taken hostage to get a dead man out of prison. 

Ben-Gvir is wrong about advocating the issue now when our captives are in enemy hands, and their families are beside themselves with worry. But let’s put that aside. Yes, he is a demagogue (so is Binyamin Netanyahu), and it is fair to question his motives, but there is a possibility that he thinks he is doing the right thing by forcing the issue now. I don’t know.

He tried to tell Army Radio that he had not decided how he would vote in the Cabinet on a hostage deal. He’s correct to be suspicious of an exchange of captives for terrorists. He is right to point out that Netanyahu did that in the Schalit deal, and the results were catastrophic.

My fear is that captives left behind by another Netanyahu-authorized deal will likely be doomed. So, we need to hold out for the release of all our captives, including soldiers and remains.

Ben-Gvir is right to oppose a Gaza truce, for it will be near-impossible to restart our military campaign to defang Hamas.

He’s right to be suspicious of the analytical assessments of the security establishment, and I would add, the wisdom of the political echelon that was in power on October 6. And, of course, he and his wall-to-wall Bibist-Hardal-Haredi government, now in power, have been part of the problem. They ignored warnings we all read about in the newspapers that their judicial putsch and the mass opposition it was engendering were weakening our polity and undermining Israel's deterrence. His obsession with humbling the enemy by striding around on the Temple Mount was... unhelpful. So when all this is over, I hope voters throw the lot of them out of the Knesset. 

With all that, Ben-Gvir is right in arguing that every utterance of a general or Shin Bet chief needs to be evaluated on the merits and not taken as revealed truth.

He’s right to make it easier for citizens to arm themselves.

He’s right to question why the instant response teams (“minutemen” like squads) on both the northern and southern fronts were practically decommissioned and defunded. And he’s right to reverse that.

In other words, just because Itamar Ben-Gvir is wrong about so many things doesn't automatically invalidate his position on capital punishment, a possible hostage-for-killers exchange, and how to think about a Gaza ceasefire.