Attitude towards Gentiles

I must say that these are useless things. Or in less polished language: nonsense and nonsense.
After all, every report focuses on points that seem relevant to the reporter. What did he expect, that the newspaper would praise the rabbi’s Torah innovations or that he would be criticized by Yehoshua? If he did indeed say that a gentile should not be allowed to live in the country, then that is the sensation that the reporter found in his words and that is the point he reported on. From what I understand, this was indeed said in the conversation, so what is the problem here? And did they expect a complete review of the lesson? Do you give a full report on the entire speech in a speech by a prime minister or president, or do you find the interesting innovations there too and mainly publish them? It is clear that you focus on the interesting and sensational, and this is completely legitimate. A newspaper that was structured as Rabbi Ofran suggests (i.e., reviewing the entire conversation) would be tedious and annoying. He himself (and you and I) would not read it. Think of a report of the rabbi’s conversation that would look like a summary of what he said (with some notes from the HaPni method and difficulties from the Rashba), and within it a small note about not praying. Is this serious? Who would read and who would even pay attention? The newspaper wouldn’t sell, and rightly so.
The fact that any issue is marginal within the framework of what was said is irrelevant to the report. The report does not deal with or review the general personality of the rabbi, but rather reports on his position or statement. Completely legitimate.

In addition, it should be remembered that rabbis are sometimes careful not to say outside what they say inside (especially about attitudes toward non-Jews, etc.), and therefore if you want to know what they think, you should glean it when it is said between the lines.
Rabbi Ofran’s apologetics on the issue of the Seven Commandments of the Sons of Noah is also completely inaccurate. It also refers to idolaters (the Seven Commandments are also one of the Seven Commandments), and for some reason Rabbi Ofran chooses to focus on murder, incest, and taking an animal organ. Does it sound so moral not to let a black man from Africa who works with stones live among us in the land?
I am also not impressed by the example of strengthening relations with non-Jews, and from my acquaintance with the individuals who are acting, I highly doubt whether this is what he really intended. It is clear that Rabbi Yosef’s perception, like most rabbis (and certainly the Haredim), is racist. Can anyone deny this? These are our sources, and anyone who does not give them a creative interpretation is a racist by definition. To show this, one has to pick pearls between the lines because things are usually not said publicly, and so on.
As for Rabbi Ofran’s praise for the rabbi’s conversation trying to find a way to be together on Seder night – I find it embarrassing that he would even consider such a thing worthy of praise. It says something very bleak about rabbinical thinking in general. What else do you need to hear the conversation to understand whether it is indeed such an attempt or whether it is a purely halachic response to a halachic problem that was raised (by someone who wants to be with a non-religious family on Seder night). The melody is decisive, and I did not hear the conversation, so I cannot express an opinion.
In conclusion, I do not agree at all with Rabbi Ofran’s words. Absolutely not. I am also far from Rabbi Yosef’s world, and among other things because of these things.