Itamar Ben-Gvir’s call for Israeli forces to kill “30 to 40” Palestinians in Gaza every night is not simply a controversial personal outburst. It exposes a political outlook in which the ceasefire is not a pathway toward safety, reconstruction or a negotiated future, but an obstacle to be managed through continued violence. As Israel’s National Security Minister and a member of the security cabinet, Ben-Gvir occupies an institutional position close to decisions that shape the country’s wider State Policy on Gaza. His remarks consequently need to be assessed not only as inflammatory language but as an indication of the ideas being advanced from inside government.
Speaking on a podcast hosted by Rom Braslavski, a former Israeli captive held in Gaza following the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack, Ben-Gvir attacked reported efforts to reduce Israeli strikes under the October ceasefire.
“It’s no secret, I disagree with the prime minister,”
— Itamar Ben-Gvir said, signalling that he regarded any reduction in violence as an unacceptable concession. He then called for what he described as targeted killings:
“I think targeted assassinations should be carried out in Gaza, taking down 30 to 40 every night,”
— Itamar Ben-Gvir.
This formulation turns lethal force into something routine rather than exceptional. At the rate proposed, the number would reach roughly 900 to 1,200 deaths in a 30-day month. No legal or military rationale was offered to demonstrate that each individual would be actively participating in hostilities, present an immediate danger, or be subject to a lawful targeting determination. The demand instead presents recurring death as an objective in itself—one disconnected from the fundamental Human Rights principle that every person retains inherent dignity and protection from arbitrary deprivation of life.
Dehumanisation as a Political Instrument
Ben-Gvir’s language was not confined to claims about armed threats or security operations. He made clear that he believed killing should go beyond people who could be said to pose an immediate danger.
“Not just those who pose an immediate threat — there are people there who are not worthy of life,”
— Itamar Ben-Gvir he said. His next words removed any ambiguity: “They shouldn’t live. They’re not even people,” — Itamar Ben-Gvir.
This is the ideological core of the controversy. The laws of war distinguish between civilians and fighters; they also require that any use of force comply with necessity, distinction, proportionality and precaution. But the claim that an entire category of people is not human enough to deserve life erases those limits before any specific operation is even considered. It makes a person’s identity, nationality or presence in Gaza appear sufficient to justify violence. That cannot be reconciled with the basic Human Rights framework, which applies to all people without discrimination.
The normalisation of such language from a serving minister is especially significant because public discourse can affect the range of policies that appear politically acceptable. Ben-Gvir does not formally command the Israel Defense Forces, but he sits in the security cabinet, a forum that contributes to war and security policy. His words therefore function as political pressure: an effort to shift State Policy from a disputed and imperfect ceasefire arrangement toward open-ended, deliberately recurring violence.
The Violence Beneath the Ceasefire
The call came amid a ceasefire that reportedly halted major combat without ending Israeli attacks in Gaza. This is why Ben-Gvir’s intervention is more than a rhetorical escalation. It reflects a reality in which the vocabulary of a truce can coexist with continued killing and widespread insecurity for Palestinians. The Gaza Health Ministry says more than 1,250 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire since the October ceasefire began. Reports have also noted that attacks continued after the ceasefire, while the precise civilian-combatant breakdown remained difficult to independently establish.
Against that backdrop,
“I think targeted assassinations should be carried out in Gaza, taking down 30 to 40 every night,”
— Itamar Ben-Gvir is a demand to institutionalise and increase violence rather than restrain it. The word “targeted” cannot settle the issue. A policy that calls for nightly killings based on a numerical benchmark reverses the principle that force must be individually justified under clear legal constraints. It risks converting exceptional security measures into a durable system of coercion.
For civilians, this kind of State Policy means that the absence of a major offensive does not necessarily mean the presence of safety. A ceasefire cannot be judged only by whether large-scale bombardment has declined. It must also be measured by whether people can live without expecting strikes, displacement, hunger, deprivation or death to remain part of ordinary life. When more than 1,250 Palestinians have reportedly been killed after the ceasefire began, the gap between formal diplomacy and civilian reality becomes impossible to ignore.
Gaza as Territory and Population
The wider political content of Ben-Gvir’s remarks shows that his proposal is not merely about a tactical response to Hamas or Israeli security concerns. It is connected to a territorial and demographic agenda.
“I see all of Gaza as ours,”
— Itamar Ben-Gvir said, while calling for
“as much emigration as possible”
— Itamar Ben-Gvir among Palestinians living in the Strip.
Together, these ideas create a stark political equation. Gaza is portrayed as Israeli territory, Palestinian presence is presented as an obstacle, and continued violence is imagined as an instrument for creating conditions in which Palestinians leave. Calling this “emigration” does not remove the coercive context. A person cannot make a genuinely voluntary choice to remain or depart when homes, hospitals, water systems, schools and livelihoods have been devastated and when security is constantly uncertain.
Legal experts have warned that forced or engineered displacement of Palestinians from Gaza could amount to ethnic cleansing. The relevance of that warning lies in the connection between words and conditions. Policies that encourage departure while life is made unlivable through military pressure, deprivation and fear can produce population transfer even without a single formal expulsion order.
This is where Human Rights and State Policy become inseparable. Protecting rights requires more than avoiding an explicit command to remove civilians. It requires creating conditions in which civilians can stay safely, access necessities, maintain family and community life, and exercise agency over their future. A political programme that combines killing rhetoric with territorial claims and calls for Palestinian departure moves in the opposite direction.
Grief Turned Into Vengeance
The discussion also revealed the dangers of turning the trauma of October 7 and hostage captivity into a justification for collective punishment. Rom Braslavski, who was held captive in Gaza, expressed a desire to personally execute Palestinian prisoners.
“Let me be the one who hangs them,”
— Rom Braslavski he said, adding that he wanted to execute
“every terrorist in the state of Israel”
— Rom Braslavski himself.
The anger underlying such remarks is understandable in the context of captivity and the broader trauma of the October 7 attack. But the role of public officials is not to convert personal pain into State Policy. It is to uphold due process, protect all civilians and ensure that criminal accountability is based on evidence and lawful judicial procedures. Israel has legitimate security responsibilities, including protecting civilians and seeking the return of captives, but those responsibilities cannot lawfully be met through executions, collective punishment or indiscriminate harm.
Rather than setting a legal and ethical boundary, Ben-Gvir appeared to endorse the demand.
“I will turn the world upside down to make that happen,”
— Itamar Ben-Gvir he said in response. This exchange illustrates how the language of vengeance can move from a deeply personal reaction to a political posture with consequences for prisoners, civilians and the wider conduct of the conflict.
The Internal Politics of Escalation
Ben-Gvir’s disagreement with Netanyahu is important, but it should not be misread as proof that the underlying State Policy has delivered genuine civilian protection. Netanyahu’s reported position has been that Israel will not withdraw from its Gaza positions until Hamas is fully disarmed, an approach that has held up several elements of the ceasefire framework, including arrangements relating to international deployment and reconstruction.
Ben-Gvir’s intervention is a push for a still harsher approach.
“It’s no secret, I disagree with the prime minister,”
— Itamar Ben-Gvir does not indicate a disagreement over whether Palestinians deserve safety or whether Gaza needs reconstruction. It signals a dispute over the tempo and intensity of coercion. Netanyahu’s policy leaves Gaza subject to continuing Israeli military control and force; Ben-Gvir seeks to define the continuation of lethal violence as a nightly norm.
Israel is reportedly heading toward elections on October 27, creating an additional domestic incentive for confrontational rhetoric. In such an atmosphere, maximalist declarations can be used to demonstrate ideological loyalty, mobilise political supporters and portray any restraint as capitulation. The danger is that Palestinians in Gaza become objects in a domestic political contest, while their Human Rights are subordinated to electoral positioning.
The absence of substantive public responses in available reporting from Netanyahu, the Israeli military, Hamas, the United Nations or major foreign governments should also be treated seriously. Silence does not prove agreement, but it can allow language that would otherwise be treated as unacceptable to become absorbed into ordinary political debate.
Sanctions Without Effective Restraint
Ben-Gvir has previously faced sanctions from the United Kingdom and certain European countries. Such measures are intended to impose political and practical costs, including through restrictions affecting travel and financial access. Yet the public nature and severity of his latest remarks raise questions about whether isolated sanctions can meaningfully constrain a senior official who remains empowered inside a governing coalition.
The issue is not simply whether an individual politician is punished. It is whether international actors are prepared to confront policies that erode Human Rights protections and entrench permanent conflict. If diplomatic responses focus only on tone while avoiding the material conditions of military control, continued strikes, displacement and humanitarian deprivation, they can leave the underlying structure untouched.
A credible accountability approach would require consistent insistence on civilian protection, transparent and independent investigation of alleged unlawful killings, opposition to forced displacement, and meaningful safeguards against collective punishment. It would also require rejecting the idea that ceasefire agreements can coexist indefinitely with recurring violence that prevents Palestinians from rebuilding normal life.
Permanent War Cannot Produce Security
Ben-Gvir’s demand reveals a vision of Gaza in which peace is not the intended outcome. The aim appears to be an enduring condition of controlled violence: Palestinian life kept insecure, force kept available, reconstruction made conditional and displacement treated as desirable. In this framework, a ceasefire does not end war; it simply changes its rhythm.
“They shouldn’t live. They’re not even people,”
— Itamar Ben-Gvir is not only a moral failure. It is a political statement that undermines every principle necessary for a just and lasting solution. When people are denied their humanity, there is no basis for recognising their rights, protecting their families, respecting their future or pursuing a settlement based on equal human worth.
A durable end to the Gaza crisis cannot emerge from a State Policy that treats recurring killing as normal, displacement as beneficial and Palestinian civilian life as negotiable. It requires a ceasefire that genuinely protects civilians; credible accountability for violations; access to humanitarian relief and reconstruction; opposition to forced population transfer; and a political framework grounded in Human Rights for Palestinians and Israelis alike. Without those conditions, the “permanent war” Ben-Gvir’s comments describe will continue to reproduce insecurity, grief and violence on every side.