Australia's independent, non-partisan, national public-interest watchdog org for strategic security, defence & wider national security issues since 1975.

Canberra
Joined July 2011
A valid point many oddly forget.
Just a reminder, as your watching the Israeli Elections, that Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, is in the 21st year of his 4 year term. Just saying …
102
Australia Defence Association retweeted
This article in the @australian mentions ASPI's ‘Taiwan matters’ report, highlighting that any disruption to Taiwan would “shape 🇦🇺’s prosperity, security and way of life for decades.” 🔗 Read the report: bit.ly/4iij1Lb 📚 Read the article: bit.ly/4stpg3n
1
4
696
Australia Defence Association retweeted
“details an internal AFP analysis of 55 radicalised children aged 12 to 17, revealing a chilling evolution in modern extremism. All of the subjects were male, and every single one was radicalised all or in part online.” abc.net.au/news/2026-10-27/a…
1
8
13
507
Australia Defence Association retweeted
“Only the Israelis are willing to risk their lives to disarm Hamas. We’ve seen it. In Lebanon, UNIFIL didn’t disarm a single Hezbollah fighter. Peacekeepers aren’t going to disarm Hezbollah, and they aren’t going to disarm Hamas.” — Hillel Neuer on @FoxNews with Brian @kilmeade
11
181
4
621
10,042
Australia Defence Association retweeted
This is not good! The ADF needs sufficient investment to have the readiness to ‘fight tonight’ and the combat sustainability to stay in that high intensity fight over a protracted period - but we also need to properly fund AUKUS and Fleet modernisation. We don’t have the luxury of an ‘either-or’ choice in capability nor do we have the luxury of time. The obvious solution is to significantly boost defence spending now and target the extra funding in a manner that boosts readiness, resilience, and combat sustainability for a high end fight within this decade.
“Everything appears to be on the table — Hunter-class frigates, infantry fighting vehicles, or even the early retirement of Navy’s Landing Helicopter Docks,” thenightly.com.au/politics/d…
16
8
1
85
3,786
Australia Defence Association retweeted
🇺🇸 @AmbUNReform Jeff Bartos: “Francesca Albanese is a liar and a lunatic who spews hatred for America, the West, Jews, and Israel, all while atomizing the very meaning of human rights. The UN should not be a nursery for evil. She must go.”
9
266
14
1,081
12,715
Australia Defence Association retweeted
'The Australian government should pause disposal for historic Victoria Barracks in Sydney and take time to resolve outstanding questions before the process has gone too far for reversal,' writes @raelock. aspistrategist.org.au/pause-…
2
2
875
Australia Defence Association retweeted
Pause the disposal of Victoria Barracks Sydney | @raelock | bit.ly/48hpEJ1
1
2
1
6
973
Australia Defence Association retweeted
"Dramatically weakening the Islamic Republic to the point where its leadership must choose between rebuilding its military capabilities and ensuring its own survival would also serve Israel’s strategic objectives. This is why I believe the discussion about the Iranian people, democracy, and political transition largely misses the point. It has been to deprive Iran of its strategic capabilities, by force if necessary."
Israel’s Iran Strategy: Not a Nuclear Deal, but Strategic Capitulation Israel’s strategy toward Iran is actually quite straightforward: eliminate Iran’s strategic capabilities, initially its nuclear program and now its ballistic missile arsenal as well. This can be achieved, in Israel’s view, through toppling the regime, military pressure that forces Tehran to surrender its strategic assets, or by weakening Iran so dramatically that it becomes a failed state, unable to generate the resources needed to rebuild its military capabilities. In other words, Netanyahu is not interested in a nuclear agreement that prevents Iran from developing nuclear weapons while allowing the Islamic Republic to survive and potentially strengthen itself. His objective goes far beyond the nuclear issue. It is about forcing Iran to abandon the capabilities that Israel considers threatening. The underlying assumption is simple: if military force fails to achieve the desired outcome, even greater force might succeed. I suspect Netanyahu understands perfectly well that someone like Reza Pahlavi is unlikely to return to Tehran and take power. But regime change is not necessarily the only acceptable outcome for him, but Dramatically weakening the Islamic Republic to the point where its leadership must choose between rebuilding its military capabilities and ensuring its own survival would also serve Israel’s strategic objectives. This is why I believe the discussion about the Iranian people, democracy, and political transition largely misses the point. It has been to deprive Iran of its strategic capabilities, by force if necessary. And this brings us to the fundamental difference between Netanyahu’s approach and a diplomatic strategy focused on nuclear nonproliferation. A nuclear agreement, even a strong and verifiable one that prevents Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, would not necessarily satisfy Netanyahu because it would leave the Islamic Republic in power, with the possibility of rebuilding its broader military strength. The real question, therefore, is not whether Iran can be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons through diplomacy. It is whether Israel, under Netanyahu, is prepared to accept an agreement that addresses the nuclear threat without fundamentally weakening the Iranian regime. I believe the answer is no. And that is precisely why the prospects for a diplomatic solution remain so limited in Israel view. The real question is if a new government will adopt the same approach. .#Iran #IranWar
3
1
15
1,878
Australia Defence Association retweeted
Why were Jonathan Powell, Peter Mandelson and Lord Hermer appointed without vetting? The answer is that Chagos was a deal Starmer couldn't refuse to make. Here's a timeline of the key stages of the Chagos treachery. In 1982, after it became known that the Chagos seabed may contain vast mineral wealth, Mauritius set up a select committee to examine the matter. However, sea-mining technology was in its infancy, and it was too expensive to be commercially viable at that time. In 2003, as underwater mining technologies advanced and the value of minerals and rare earth elements soared, mining the Chagos seabed became an exciting possibility again; Mauritius appointed the eminent international barrister Sir Ian Brownlie as advisor for the Chagos Archipelago. A former member of the Communist Party of Great Britain, Brownlie was a good friend of Sir Satcam Boolell, a former Labour deputy prime minister of Mauritius, and High Commissioner in London. In 2009, Brownlie led the first Mauritius delegation to the Foreign Office in London seeking a Chagos deal. Among the delegation was Sir Satcam Boolell's son Satyajit, who became Mauritius Director of Public Prosecutions the same year. In 2010, after Brownlie died in a motor accident in Egypt, Sir Keir Starmer’s “great mate”, Philippe Sands, a leading human-rights lawyer who has publicly boasted of humiliating the UK in international courts, took over as counsel to Mauritius for Chagos. In 2013, Satyajit Boolell invited Keir Starmer, whom he had become friendly with during Starmer's time as the UK's DPP, to a legal conference at the 5-star Balaclava resort in Mauritius. During the trip, Starmer discussed the future of the Chagos Archipelago with then Mauritius prime minister Navin Ramgoolam. After Starmer’s 2013 visit, Ramgoolam wrote that he and Starmer were aligned over Chagos. In 2015, Ramgoolam was arrested on money-laundering charges when large sums of cash in foreign currencies, suitcases full of brand-new luxury watches, and blank British visas were found in his home. Also in 2015, Starmer was elected to the British Parliament. In 2019, Philippe Sands, after a campaign of lobbying the UN, obtained an International Court of Justice ruling (advisory opinion only, and non-binding) that the Chagos islands should be given to Mauritius. Sands used the ICJ ruling as leverage in the following years in his efforts to persuade the Conservative government to give Chagos to Mauritius. In 2020, Starmer became leader of the Labour Party. In 2021, Sands received Mauritius' top honour, The Most Distinguished Order of the Star and Key of the Indian Ocean. In 2022, Sands made an unauthorized entry into the Chagos Archipelago for a flag-raising ceremony. Sands tweets at the time, “It’s morning on Chagos, where the flag of Mauritius flies." In 2023, Sands became a Mauritius citizen, but retains his British and French citizenships. 🧧In November 2023, David Cameron replaced James Cleverly as Foreign Secretary and, with the support of other senior Tories, stopped a Chagos deal saying, it’s not in the national interest, as reported in Hansard. In July 2024, Starmer became UK Prime Minister and just ten weeks after entering Downing Street, he agreed a deal with Mauritius, despite there having been no mention of Chagos during the election campaign, and the Labour manifesto pledging to protect the BOT. in November of 2024, Ramgoolam was elected Mauritius prime minister again after a snap general election, and took over from the incumbent PM, Pravind Jugnauth, to lead the Chagos negotiations with the UK. In December 2024, after 14 years in the role, Philippe Sands steps down as Mauritius counsel for Chagos. In January 2025, Attorney General Lord Hermer recused himself from signing off on the Chagos deal, and declined to say why. In February 2025, Jugnauth was arrested on money-laundering charges after large sums of cash in foreign currencies and suitcases full of brand-new luxury watches were found in his home. In May 2025, twelve years after discussing the future of Chagos in Mauritius, Starmer and Ramgoolam sat down in London to sign the treaty that transfers the archipelago's sovereignty to Mauritius. The Fall Out. The Chagos deal does🟥NOT secure the joint UK/US military base on Diego Garcia. The deal operationally hobbles the base, and increases the dangers to the British and American military personnel, and the civilians who work there, and in the wider Central Indian Ocean region. Diego Garcia's remoteness made it easy to defend in the past. This deal leaves the base horribly vulnerable to the growing threats posed by the new longer-range missiles, and more sophisticated and lethal drones. When Keir Starmer, Lord Hermer and Vijay Rangarajan, the Director General at the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office, made the deal it was fully understood that the outer islands of the Chagos Archipelago were by far the best locations to deploy early warning, and air-defense systems, to protect the main base from missile and drone attacks. Yet they still decided to lease only Diego Garcia. Andy Burnham, Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, and Defense Minister Wes Streeting, know the deal increases the dangers to the lives of British service personnel, and our NATO allies personnel, in the strategically important Central Indian Ocean region. To double down and push the deal with that knowledge is a shameful act of betrayal. While the deal leaves Diego Garcia vulnerable to attack, it also renders the base itself ineffective and operationally hobbled. Mauritius is a signatory of the Pelindaba African Weapon-Free Zone Treaty which bans all nuclear weapons from treaty members' territory. Pelindaba gives each of the more the 40 countries who have signed it the right to inspect the facilities on Diego Garcia if they suspect nuclear arms are being stored there. The UK's nuclear-armed Trident submarines will no longer be able to enter Chagos waters, or visit Diego Garcia which is the only island in the region which has suitable anchorage and facilities for maintenance and restocking provisions, etc. The US's nuclear-armed submarines, ships, and planes will also be banned from Diego Garcia and the Chagos Archipelago's waters. Mauritius gets complete sovereignty over everything, including control of the airspace above the Chagos Archipelago, which at 250,000 square miles is the same size as France. The implications of controlling such a vast area of airspace in a strategically vital region are huge. Mauritius has shown it will ban planes entering its current airspace when China asks. The Chagos Deal does not ‘secure the base’. It methodically destroys every element required for operations. The text and annexes state it will: ❌Constrain future Ops and use of the base ❌Prevent the placing of sensors and other maritime installations ❌Require us to sight our foes on defence planning ❌Mean we’re unable to use our preferred contractors ❌See us lose of control over electromagnetic spectrum.
80
824
76
1,808
51,259
Australia Defence Association retweeted
Ghost Sharks’ mines won’t be much use if Australia can’t act fast enough | Natalie Treloar | bit.ly/4igLaCf
1
6
21
1,413
Satire. But sadly may not be recognised as such by many. Particularly those so inculcated with Hamas propaganda, or Jew-hatred, or both, that objectivity has vanished.
Today I’m wearing my keffiyeh jacket to show my solidarity with Gaza. Hand-finished in cashmere-and-silk bouclé, £3,250.
6
273
Australia Defence Association retweeted
A deeply ill-informed @crikey_news piece by Albert Palazzo, an Army historian who has repeatedly written about maritime defence in ways that, in my view, demonstrate a poor understanding of how maritime strategy actually works. The basic problem is that he treats trade protection as though 🇦🇺 would need to escort thousands of merchant ships across entire ocean routes. We wouldn’t. 🇦🇺 needs layered maritime defence: protecting ports & approaches, controlling critical sea lines of communication, & using subs, surface ships, aircraft, intelligence and surveillance, naval control of shipping, mine warfare & allies to keep critical seabourne supply (a subset of maritime trade). The RAN did exactly this in WWII. Protecting trade involved convoy escort, minesweeping, anti-submarine warfare, naval control of shipping &port defence. It did not mean escorting every ship everywhere. A better explanation of how 🇦🇺 would actually protect maritime trade: lowyinstitute.org/the-interp…
A core part of Australia’s defence policy is to protect merchant ships at sea. It’s a mission it can’t possibly fulfil — and meanwhile it gets leveraged to justify AUKUS and appease the US, writes Albert Palazzo. crikey.com.au/2026/10/26/aus…
20
11
1
107
4,556
Australia Defence Association retweeted
A good piece by @astonrbrown in the @guardian looking at ADF recruitment in 🇦🇺, and what those joining the ADF in 2026 can expect. Pleased to be able to contribute: 'Parker says these benefits, combined with one of the most significant modernisations in military history, make it a “fairly exciting time” to join the military. But, she warns, “anyone who joins the ADF should expect to serve on operations and, if necessary, be called upon to fight for their country – the chances of doing that is increasing”'. 🇦🇺 faces challenging times, but we are a great country, despite our challenges and it is those amazing young women and men choosing to join the should give us confidence we are up to the task. 🔗 theguardian.com/world/2026/o… @DefenceUwa @LowyInstitute @NSC_ANU
1
6
1
38
2,078
Australia Defence Association retweeted
Russia is firing ballistic missiles with cluster warheads on civilian targets. A barbaric act of evil that, in a just world, would see condemnation from all civilised nations. Sadly, I suspect some will continue to maintain that what Russia is doing to Ukraine is 'fine'...
It’s now officially confirmed. Tonight, russia struck Kyiv’s historic centre with an Iskander ballistic missile carrying a cluster warhead. 58 submunitions explode in mid-air, designed to inflict maximum casualties across a 400 × 400 metre area. “This strike had no military purpose. The goal was to destroy part of the old city and injure as many people as possible,” said a Ukrainian presidential adviser. No military objective. Just terror.
9
62
3
420
10,009
Australia Defence Association retweeted
Yes, @wesstreeting, we do need to rethink to gain the initiative. But you won’t do that by working the old machine harder. You need a new one… Some quotes in the following short thread from a @Policy_Exchange research paper drafted a year ago. 1/3 telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/10…
1
6
26
2,358
Australia Defence Association retweeted
The below is an excerpt from @benmckelvey excellent book Find Fix Finish that confirms Ben Roberts-Smith recollections and remorse of the insider attack and follow on hunt for Hekmatullah, via my direct involvement in the hunt. It was just after midnight when I walked into the Task Force 66 intelligence Fusion And Targeting Cell (#FATC) ‘What’s going on?’ I asked. ‘Green on blue,’ at an Aussie Patrol Base the boss replied. I went straight to my computer and went to work, sending RFI (requests for information) across the @NATO_SOF intelligence network. I was looking at any #HUMINT or #SIGINT insurgents in the Baluchi/Dorafshan area I was monitoring. I had to figure out if this attack was part of the insurgency, and more importantly were there going to be other attacks that night. My main priority was to positively identify who the Afghan National Army (#ANA) soldier was that attacked @AustralianArmy soldiers, so that I could build a #JPEL target pack so that I could obtain Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (#ISR) assets and legally target him. A @ADF_SOCOMD Force Element Alpha (#FE_A #SASR ) element were going up to the patrol base immediately. After about 15 minutes (but felt like hours) there was a hard knock on the door of the FATC, it was Ben Roberts-Smith and he looked straight at me and stated "get your shit on mate, you're coming with us". This was so I could interview the remaining ANA soldiers to gather immediate actionable intelligence for the FE to act upon. The Commanding Officer's priority was to identify and locate this attacker ASAP. ‘You don’t get to kill @AustralianArmy soldiers and get away with it,’ was the mood within the Task Force. A FE A element were able to be sent to the patrol base that night, to resolve the stand-off between our (@AustralianArmy) 3RAR brothers and the remaining ANA soldiers, but mainly the FE A operators wanted to show that big brother was there and, ‘give them a hug and assure the remaining @AustralianArmy soldiers that we had their back and weren't going to rest until we had the killer.' By early morning I had identified that the killer was Afghan National Army (ANA) Sergeant (Zabet) #Hekmatullah . It was early morning now and I had raised Hekmatullah on to the JPEL as Objective Jungle Effect. The hunt for Hekmatullah was now on and It was my role to find his location, and brief the leadership who then tasked the FE to go to that location and search for him. Objective Jungle Effect was designated by PM @JuliaGillard, the @ausgov and @DefenceAust as the new top ‘national priority target’ and was ‘green’ on the JPEL, meaning I could use all the various intelligence collection platforms to locate Hekmatullah. We didn't rest for the next weeks we didn't rest until I had it confirmed via @NATO_SOF intelligence that Hekmatullah had reached Pakistan.
1
5
1
24
3,164
Australia Defence Association retweeted
Not a 'crazy theory' @PalmerLuckey ! I agree - #Taiwan represents the beginning of #China's geopolitical ambitions - and I note their previous statements re #Okinawa, and now #Batanes, not to mention their claim to the entireity of the South China Sea. They want a Chinese sphere of influence extending across the Indo-Pacific, and they want a Chinese-centric world order to replace a US-led rules-based international order.
Palmer Luckey warns China won’t stop at Taiwan… and believes Beijing is already building a historical narrative to justify territorial claims over Okinawa, the Philippines, and other Pacific territories. 🇺🇸🇨🇳🇹🇼🇯🇵 “This is my crazy theory, and people can disagree with me. But nobody in history has ever built a gigantic amphibious landing force, used it once, and then dismantled it—except for the United States. If China takes Taiwan, I think they’re immediately going to hop over to Okinawa, parts of the Philippines, and maybe parts of Vietnam as well. Xi Jinping has been talking about the Ryukyu Islands, where Okinawa is located, and historical tributary relationships with China. They’re not bringing up ancient history just because they love wandering through national archives looking at obscure tributary states. They’re constructing a national narrative that would allow them to convince their people to start with Taiwan—and then go after more of America’s Pacific allies.”
10
8
1
38
2,002
Australia Defence Association retweeted
I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if hundreds of Mearsheimer’s acolytes, western Valdai Club attendees, Kremlin lackies, Quisling Institute no marks, faux Oxford intellectuals, and foreign policy ‘realists’ cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced
Wer noch immer den Blödsinn glaubt, die Nato-Osterweiterung habe mit den Ursachen dieses Krieges etwas zu tun, sollte einfach mal Putin zuhören. Der sagt ganz offen nach imperialistischer Manier: Ich sehe das als mein Land, deswegen greife ich an und hole es mir.
14
40
211
8,587
Try and imagine this article being posted in any other Middle Eastern country. Without the author being killed, arrested or exiled. Or whether most democracies anywhere are able to tolerate and handle the l4vel of robust democratic debate the article encapsulates. Even before any comparison is made with Hamas dictatorial rule in Gaza, Hezbollah dictatorial rule in southern Lebanon, or the recent murderous response in Iran to those protesting its dictatorial Islamist regime. Or indeed the Palestinian Authority's latest postponement of elections in the West Bank, after having had no elections for two decades, contrary to its own constitution, the Oslo Accords and various UN resolutions. Middle East history and current issues are complex. Not acknowledging such complexity, or criticising Israel in isolation, or refexively blaming Israel for everything, is surely neither objective nor helpful?
A little more than three years ago, in the days leading up to October 7, 2023, I started drafting a piece that was never published. As The Jerusalem Post’s editor-in-chief, I oversaw the paper’s daily editorials, unsigned opinion pieces expressing the view of the editorial staff on the issues of the day. Each morning, I would discuss potential topics and positions with the editor assigned to write the next day’s piece, then review, edit, and sign off on the draft prior to publication. Once a week or so, I wrote the editorial myself, generally pondering the topic for several days unless breaking news forced my hand. Atypically, in the case in question, I knew what I wanted to title the editorial before it was even written: “Ben-Gvir Must Go.” Calling for the dismissal of a senior government minister is not a decision to be taken lightly. Journalists, no matter how critical of the government they or their publications may be, rely on relationships with officials at all levels to do their jobs. I worried that we might jeopardize our reporters’ access to important sources, particularly in ministries controlled by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and his far-right Otzma Yehudit party, impairing their ability to serve the public and inform the national conversation. But I decided that we needed to take a stand nonetheless. In the months prior, we had published a series of editorials increasingly critical of Ben-Gvir and of his utter failure to do his job as the minister responsible for law enforcement. In April of that year, we said that putting him in charge of a newly formed National Guard should be a “nonstarter.” In June, we wrote that, if he continued engaging in inflammatory stunts rather than dedicating himself to fighting a wave of deadly violence sweeping through Israel’s Arab community, he ought to step down. In August, we called his racist attacks on Arab Israeli journalist Mohammed Magadli “abhorrent” and “appalling.” In September, we slammed his attempts to undermine due process and ease prison conditions for Amiram Ben-Uliel, convicted of murdering three members of a Palestinian family, including an infant. In my own weekly columns, published each Friday, I took Ben-Gvir to task for modeling racist extremism to Israel’s teens, attempting to undermine non-Orthodox conversions, helping foster an atmosphere of hostility toward Israel’s LGBT community, and doing little to prevent acts of murder among the country’s Arab citizens. “Arab lives matter, too, and unless Ben-Gvir comes to accept that and treat the murder of a boy in Rahat or Taibe as he would the murder of a boy in Karnei Shomron or Petah Tikva, he needs to make way for someone who will,” I wrote that August. But as passions swirled in the months and weeks leading up to October 7, my concerns about Ben-Gvir grew beyond his inflammatory rhetoric and abysmal performance in office. Time and again, he demonstrated contempt for the restraints that govern the exercise of state power, seeking to bend law enforcement institutions to his will and attacking those who stood in his way. At one of the most sensitive moments in Israel’s history, his conduct had become a threat to the rule of law and to the institutions he had sworn to protect. It could no longer be left up to him, I decided; we needed to call on Prime Minister Netanyahu to let him go. I planned to publish the call in the next Friday paper, the most widely read issue of the week, on October 13. Six days before it was to appear, Hamas invaded southern Israel. The horrors of October 7 gripped our collective attention for days, weeks, and then months, leaving little room — in our minds or on our pages — for anything else. The war expanded to additional fronts and we became consumed by its impact on every facet of our lives. I left the Post. The piece never ran. For three years, though, those four words — Ben-Gvir must go — have echoed through my mind. His conduct throughout this period has only strengthened the conviction behind them. Now, with days to go until Israel heads to the polls, it is time to say them out loud. Much has been made of the damage Ben-Gvir’s behavior and his very presence in the cabinet cause Israel’s reputation on a daily basis. His name has become shorthand for crude extremism, and the fact that he is a senior minister is held up as proof that his noxious views are somehow representative of Israeli society, despite his party holding only six of the Knesset’s 120 seats. As someone who engages regularly with audiences around the world, most of them predominantly Jewish and pro-Israel, I cannot recall the last time a Q&A session did not include at least one pointed question about Ben-Gvir, the way his awful statements and outlandish conduct reflect on Israel, and the shame and embarrassment he causes some of the Jewish state’s most devoted supporters. But the problem with Ben-Gvir isn’t merely that he makes Israel look bad, though he certainly does. The problem is the Israel he is trying to forge in his own image — a dark place that would be utterly unrecognizable. It is tempting to dismiss his antics as publicity stunts meant to appeal to a certain type of voter, as though he is perpetually in campaign mode. His provocations have ranged from having himself filmed taunting bound Gaza flotilla activists and Palestinian prisoners to wearing a noose lapel pin and celebrating his birthday with gallows- and gun-themed cakes to promote his effort to impose the death penalty on Palestinian terrorists; and from dancing at a conference calling for the emigration of Gaza’s Palestinian residents and the reestablishment of Israeli communities in the territory to announcing plans to surround a prison holding Palestinian security prisoners with a crocodile-filled moat. But beneath this gruesome spectacle lies a disturbing worldview that is racist, thuggish, supremacist, and cruel. An acolyte of Meir Kahane — the American-born rabbi convicted of terrorism-related charges in the U.S. and banned from the Knesset for his incitement to anti-Arab racism — Ben-Gvir has never been one to conceal his views. “We had a prophet in our midst, a leader among us, and we walk in his footsteps,” he said in 2016, referring to Kahane. Until 2020, a portrait of Baruch Goldstein — another Kahane disciple who massacred 29 Palestinian Muslim worshippers at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron in 1994 — hung on his living room wall. He had previously displayed signs reading “Expel the Arab enemy.” Also in 2016, he declared that LGBT people “have no place neither in Jerusalem nor anywhere else in the State of Israel.” He backed a suggestion by fellow extremist (and current fellow cabinet member) Bezalel Smotrich that Jewish and Arab women should be separated in maternity wards and added he would require pregnant Arab women to take loyalty oaths. And lest anyone suspect that his entry into electoral politics reflected a moderation of his views, Ben-Gvir himself dispelled the notion: “My style has changed, but the ideology is the same ideology,” he said in 2019. The form is the substance, and it has been ever since Ben-Gvir went on national television as a 19-year-old to display an emblem stolen from Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s Cadillac and crow that “we got to his car, and we’ll get to him too” (Rabin was murdered by another far-right extremist, Yigal Amir, several weeks later). Between 1993 and 2007, he was indicted on 15 criminal charges, including incitement to violence, possession of terrorist propaganda, and support for a terrorist organization. He was convicted of 13. One might argue — erroneously, in my view — that Ben-Gvir’s antics, his criminal past, his noxious views, and the damage he causes Israel’s image would be tolerable if he were good at his job. But the truth is that he has been an abject failure. As minister of national security, he has presided over a surge in violent crime not seen in decades. During his time in office, the number of homicide victims has more than doubled, from 148 in 2022 — approximately 1.5 homicides per 100,000 residents — to 309 in 2025, or approximately 3.0 per 100,000 residents. The disparity in homicide rates between Arab and Jewish Israelis widened considerably, from 10:1 to 14:1, after Ben-Gvir terminated a program created by the previous government to prevent violent crime in Arab communities, which had caused the murder rate to decline. When asked about the wave of murders among Arab Israelis, Ben-Gvir said that the “greater danger” was that it could “spill over into the Jewish sector” and that weapons held by Arab citizens “could be directed at us on command.” Meanwhile, Ben-Gvir has repeatedly sought to bend the police to his political will. He attempted to remove Tel Aviv’s police commander amid disagreements over the handling of anti-government protests, prompting the attorney general to intervene. The Supreme Court has repeatedly had to restrain his interference in operational policing decisions, particularly concerning demonstrations, and struck down a legislative provision granting him expanded authority over criminal investigations. His attempts to influence police appointments and promotions have raised serious concerns that officers’ careers could depend less on their professional judgment than on their willingness to do his bidding. Ben-Gvir’s indulgence of Jewish terrorism in the West Bank has been particularly egregious. He has characterized attacks on Palestinians as a “marginal” phenomenon — contradicting the heads of the IDF, the Shin Bet, and the Israel Police, who jointly warned about the threat they pose — and reportedly called their perpetrators “sweet kids.” As the attacks have escalated, police investigations have declined sharply. Senior officers have also faced allegations of deliberately failing to pursue Jewish terrorism suspects in an effort to curry favor with the minister. Only a third of Israelis now say they have high trust in the police. Israelis also report lower levels of personal safety, with a quarter saying they don’t feel comfortable walking alone after dark. Three-quarters of Israelis say they believe police decisions are influenced by political pressure, rather than purely professional considerations. Ben-Gvir is not a bull in a china shop; a bull cannot control its actions. He is a hooligan with a baseball bat, gleefully smashing every democratic norm, every Jewish value, every standard of decency, and every foundation of the state whose citizens he is supposed to protect. Elsewhere, a minister who had failed so resoundingly at his job, and whose tenure had caused his country so much damage, would have been sacked long ago. Having appointed Ben-Gvir to a critical and sensitive ministerial post for which he was grossly ill-suited, and having assembled a governing coalition of which Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit party is an indispensable part, Prime Minister Netanyahu has adamantly refused to let him go, going so far as to defend his continued tenure in court. That he granted a convicted criminal control over the country’s law enforcement bodies, that he has allowed himself and his government to be held hostage by him, that he has staked his political fate on his band of extremists, and that he has permitted him to run amok during one of the most fateful periods in Israel’s history will be a mark of shame on Netanyahu’s premiership. He, too, bears responsibility for Ben-Gvir’s disastrous term in office. Itamar Ben-Gvir’s record has demonstrated not merely that he is unfit for his current position, but that he should never again be entrusted with the authority of public office. His continued presence in Israel’s government poses a threat to Israeli democracy. Netanyahu may have opened the door to Ben-Gvir and his ilk, but now it falls to us to close it. When I enter the polling booth on Tuesday, my vote will be shaped not only by my opposition to Ben-Gvir and everything he stands for, but also by my conviction that he must play no role at all in Israel’s next government. I will not cast my ballot for any party willing to form a coalition with Otzma Yehudit or to enable Ben-Gvir to hold a ministerial post once again, and I urge other Israeli voters to do the same. It is time to put this ugly chapter behind us. Yes, Ben-Gvir must go. ----- Yes, Ben-Gvir Must Go Jerusalem Journal October 23, 2026 Link in the first threaded tweet
1
3
267