If Israel’s government doesn’t come to its senses soon, National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir will be its representative for this year’s Europe Day reception at the Delegation of the European Union to the State of Israel, in Tel Aviv. The annual event is attended by all the diplomats of EU member states who are stationed in the country.
Everything about this undiplomatic decision was bizarre and chaotic, in the best Israeli tradition. Officials in the Cabinet Secretariat confirmed the assignment to journalists, but EU delegation staff members say the mission was not officially informed of the identity of Israel’s representative before Ben-Gvir’s name was leaked to the media.
The assignment was not random, of course. Of all the superfluous cabinet ministers and their myriad deputies in the current government, the reddest flag on hand was deliberately selected. It is not merely a finger in the eye of Europe, it is a middle finger in the eye. Many Israelis have come to take for granted the new public standing of the head of Otzma Yehudit – “Jewish power” in Hebrew, a name that in any European language recalls dark days on the continent.
But for the Europeans it remains, rightly, a symbol of Kahanist racism. Of values whose normalization would appear to be entirely verboten, precisely in the name of the lessons of that dark time. Once again, it’s sad historical irony at its best: Europe is trying to cling, with the last of its strength, to the world of liberal-democratic values that emerged as a counterreaction to the horrors of World War II, and the state of the Jews, perversely, seeks to challenge these values head-on (and afterward to claim that its relations with those countries are based on ostensibly liberal “shared values”).
On a deeper level, at the foundation of this madness is the Israeli perception that the lesson of the Holocaust is particular (never again – for the Jews) rather than universal (never again – for anyone). On this level, Ben-Gvir is indeed the clearest _expression_ of the idea that ethnic supremacy is forbidden against Jews but permitted against Arabs.
And so, in complete contradiction to the illusion that Israel cultivated for years of being part of the liberal world, under Benjamin Netanyahu the country is in practice growing increasingly closer to the anti-liberal camp and the far-right forces in Europe. These are forces that, like him, seek to challenge the post-World War II liberal world order of the era – and, above all, international law.
Ben-Gvir, then, is a perfect representative of the Netanyahu government’s understanding of its relations with Europe. But how will the Europeans react? Still captive in the overly delicate web of relations with the state of the Jews, because of that historical background, along with their tendency toward over-diplomacy even in cases requiring a more decisive response, they find it difficult to get out of the trap.
In the four-plus months since the government was sworn in, many diplomats from EU states stationed in Israel have successfully dodged meetings with Ben-Gvir (and also with Bezalel Smotrich) and are now debating whether to boycott Tuesday’s reception altogether or go but stay as far from Ben-Gvir as possible in order to avoid shaking hands or appearing in a photograph with him.
It is not yet clear whether Ben-Gvir will speak at the event. What the Europeans don’t understand is that for Ben-Gvir, his mere participation, even if only a single diplomat pays attention to him (Hungary? Poland?), is his image of victory. As with his attendance at a reception hosted by the United Arab Emirates in Tel Aviv on December 1, Ben-Gvir wants to go to such events to prove he is not a persona non grata in the international community.
Any ambassador participating alongside him in the event will thereby contribute to his normalization. For that reason, if he or she seeks to act in good faith, they must boycott the reception, regardless of whether Ben-Gvir gives a speech.