OP-ED: Canada is right to condemn Ben-Gvir, but wrong to mistake him for Israel

Dotan Rousso writes, "Democratic allies should speak honestly to one another. But honesty must also include recognizing that Ben-Gvir is not the face of Israel."

Wikimedia Commons

By: Dotan Rousso

Dotan Rousso is an academic and legal scholar specializing in criminal law, privacy, and the intersection of technology and legal ethics.

Canada’s decision to summon the Israeli ambassador following the publication of Itamar Ben-Gvir’s latest video involving detained flotilla activists is understandable. Ottawa expressed concern over footage showing activists being publicly mocked after their interception by Israeli authorities, viewing the incident as inconsistent with the standards expected from democratic allies during wartime.

Ben-Gvir, who serves as Israel’s National Security Minister and oversees the police and prison system, performed in the video and circulated it himself. The backlash inside Israel was immediate. Critics from across the political spectrum condemned the footage not merely because it damaged Israel diplomatically, but because many Israelis viewed the conduct itself as morally wrong, degrading, and unworthy of a democratic society. Former security officials, centrists, opposition figures, and ordinary citizens accused Ben-Gvir of turning state authority into political theater.

None of this requires romanticizing the flotilla movement. These operations are rarely politically neutral humanitarian missions. Many activists involved openly seek confrontation with Israel because provocation itself advances their cause. Numerous participants and organizers have refused to condemn the October 7 massacre, avoided recognizing Hamas as a terrorist organization, or minimized the atrocities committed against Israeli civilians.

But that context does not justify humiliation or abuse. Democracies are tested precisely in how they treat hostile or deeply antagonistic actors. The moral standard cannot depend solely on whether one sympathizes with those being detained.

The deeper issue exposed by this episode is the structure of Israeli politics itself.

OP-ED: The hidden price of Canadian neutrality

OP-ED: Who won the war with Iran?

Israel’s coalition system grants disproportionate power to small ideological parties because governments often cannot survive without them. In practice, fringe political factions can become kingmakers. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeatedly depended on parties led by Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich to maintain a parliamentary majority.

The result is a political distortion in which politicians viewed by the vast majority of the Israelis themselves as extremist, racist, and deeply inflammatory acquire senior ministerial authority far beyond their actual level of public support.

This distinction matters because anti-Zionist activists and many anti-Israel voices abroad repeatedly present Ben-Gvir as if he represents Israeli society itself. He does not. He represents a loud, radical faction empowered by a dysfunctional coalition structure that most Israelis deeply resent.

No country should be reduced to its most extreme political figures. Canada would not wish to be defined by its fringe activists, nor would the United States want to be judged solely through its most radical politicians. Yet Israel is routinely treated precisely this way.

Canada, therefore, has every right to demand explanations regarding the conduct of a senior Israeli minister. Democratic allies should speak honestly to one another. But honesty must also include recognizing that Ben-Gvir is not the face of Israel. Presenting him as such does not clarify the conflict. It distorts it.