National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir has become a polarizing figure in Israeli politics, attracting sharp criticism both domestically and internationally. His outspoken positions—which include support for the death penalty for terrorists, advocating for voluntary emigration of Gaza residents, expansion of Jewish settlements, and opposition to Palestinian statehood—are central to the controversy surrounding him. Yet these policy stances alone do not fully account for the intensity of the reactions he elicits.

Observers point to Ben-Gvir’s style and approach as key factors. Known for theatrical provocations, confrontational rhetoric, and high-profile social media actions, he uses imagery and dramatic gestures to advance his agenda. Examples include calls for a crocodile moat around prisons holding Hamas detainees and public confrontations with activists supporting the Gaza flotilla. This mode of engagement has amplified his profile far beyond Israel’s borders, transforming political debate into a more existential dispute over identity, nationalism, and Jewish sovereignty.

Ben-Gvir’s unapologetic assertion of Jewish pride and rejection of political correctness contribute to what some have labeled the "Ben-Gvir effect." The phenomenon has sparked reactions from a broad spectrum, exemplified by comments from U2’s Bono, who compared Ben-Gvir’s rhetoric on Gazans to that of Heinrich Himmler and accused him of casting Judaism in a negative light. Such comparisons have been met with criticism for conflating an individual politician’s views with Judaism as a whole, underscoring the complicated dynamics at play.

Elected democratically to the Knesset, Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit party is part of the current governing coalition and polls indicate it could maintain a presence of around eight seats in upcoming elections. While critics on the political left raise alarms about democratic norms and rule of law, more moderate voices on the right express concern that his provocations undermine diplomatic efforts. Yet despite past ostracism, the ideology underpinning Ben-Gvir’s platform aligns closely with historical right-wing positions in Israel, differing mainly in tone and emphasis on Jewish identity.

Representing a new generation within the national-religious camp, Ben-Gvir's politics are rooted in a Jewish and religious worldview that distances itself from European cultural influences and the sensitivities of Western audiences. This has unsettled many, both inside Israel and abroad, as it challenges prevailing norms about secularism and political discourse. His approach embodies a transformation in the expression of Jewish identity—moving away from the more assimilated or universalist models toward a more overtly nationalist and religious posture.

This shift has deepened societal divisions, with secular Israelis often reacting viscerally to Ben-Gvir’s prominence. His unapologetic Jewish nationalism contrasts sharply with previous models such as the “court Jew” figure or the secular, socialist “New Hebrew” archetype that shaped much of Israel’s early statehood. Moreover, his public embrace of religious belief within political discourse raises questions about the role of religion in the state—questions that had been somewhat muted within Israel’s secular-Zionist framework.

The heightened friction surrounding Ben-Gvir reflects broader challenges facing Israeli society as it grapples with questions of identity, sovereignty, and the integration of religion into public life amid ongoing security concerns following the events of October 7. Some analysts suggest that to navigate these complexities, Israeli society and its political leaders must foster dialogue rooted in tolerance and understanding, avoiding reactionary responses and violence.

Despite the polarized debate, Ben-Gvir’s rise has brought renewed attention to a form of Jewish nationalism that had remained largely peripheral, drawing both hostility and cautious interest from international leaders seeking approaches to combat radical Islamism and terrorism. For Ben-Gvir and his camp to leverage this moment, some suggest a shift from provocation toward more substantive communication is necessary—one that speaks to the global community without forsaking core ideological commitments.

In sum, the contentious reactions to Ben-Gvir reflect broader tensions not just within Israel’s political landscape but also in how Jewish identity and sovereignty are negotiated in a changing domestic and international context. The "Ben-Gvir effect" reveals as much about the global and local response to an assertive nationalist-religious figure as it does about the minister himself.