Commentary magazine is up in arms over yesterday’s New York Times op-ed, where Dani Dayan, head of the Settlers Council of Judea and Samaria, announced Israel’s “unassailable” right to takeover Palestinian land. Today the pro-Israel, neoconservative publication ran a piece by Seth Mandel, decrying Dayan’s “settlers are here to stay” call as callous:
What about the Palestinians? Dayan doesn’t say Israel should give the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria voting rights. If he would, is he not concerned about the demographics at play? If he would not, is he suggesting that the Palestinians should be a permanently stateless people and that Israel would be permanently without clear national borders? He writes that Israeli security should be paramount, but the Judea and Samaria he envisions would be a long-term security nightmare for Israel.
Mandel also knocks Dayan as dangerous to U.S. interests:
[H]as he [Dayan] thought through the implications to U.S. foreign policy of his proposal? Specifically, he seems to want the U.S.–a principal external force on the peace process–to ignore its own dedication to the right of self-determination for the Palestinians. But that would mean weakening American devotion to the general principle of self-determination, which is a major driving force behind continued American support for Israel.
And Dayan is called out for claiming it is impossible to dismantle settlements:
Dayan claims removing the settlers would be impossible. Why? Today there are no settlers in Gaza.
In a separate piece today, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA)’s Uriel Heilman caught Dayan mirroring an editorial written months earlier by a representative of the Israeli government, Likud Knesset member Danny Danon.
While most voices in the Israeli and international news media are calling on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to grant major concessions to the Palestinians to forestall such a move, he should in fact do the opposite: he should annex the Jewish communities of the West Bank, or as Israelis prefer to refer to our historic heartland, Judea and Samaria…
In addition to its obvious ideological and symbolic significance, legalizing our hold on the West Bank would also increase the security of all Israelis by depriving terrorists of a base and creating a buffer against threats from the east. Moreover, we would be well within our rights to assert, as we did in Gaza after our disengagement in 2005, that we are no longer responsible for the Palestinian residents of the West Bank, who would continue to live in their own — unannexed — towns.
These Palestinians would not have the option to become Israeli citizens, therefore averting the threat to the Jewish and democratic status of Israel by a growing Palestinian population.
The JTA‘s report clearly indicates that while Mandel and other U.S. conservatives oppose Dayan’s bid to conquer the West Bank, the settler leader is backed by the Israeli government’s ruling party.
“The JTA’s report clearly indicates that while Mandel and other U.S. conservatives oppose Dayan’s bid to conquer the West Bank”.
Yes. But aren’t isn’t it US conservatives that are funding the settlements to a very big extent (Moskowitz on one hand, and perhaps CZs on the other)?
The harder they try to justify Israel’s crimes, the grimier and more revealing their rhetoric becomes . Logic and thinking obviously aren’t their forte.
If Israel has a need to annex these territories, it’s rather obvious they are not now, nor have they ever been, Israeli.
If Israel has a need to annex these territories, it’s rather obvious they are not now, nor have they ever been, Israeli.
This statement should be engraved in stone as a starting point. It has ‘Mommy, the Emperor isn’t wearing any clothes’ clarity.
Allison Deger, do you honestly think that the neocons oppose that man in practice? They might differ on how to present it to the world and on the practical details on the edges. Certainly the neocons do not like the strident tone. But at it’s core, do you think that there is a difference?
I suspect that you don’t, so why post it as news?
This is the same old, same old hasbara. One pays lip service to the idea of the 2SS but in reality do nothing – at best – to change the status quo, often giving tacit support to those who are against it.
The tone of this piece could as easily as come from Jeff Goldberg, pretending that this is somehow a legitimate and authentic viewpoint and that there are serious divisions here.
You can do better than this.
why not just shoot the messenger krauss? commentary’s article wasn’t written by ‘the neocons’ it was written by one man, whom btw, is catching massive crap in their comment section. i am not fantasizing he is their ‘good guy’ but ask me if i think a few neonuts have grasp their game will be up if they push the US too far. by US i mean the public. you really can’t push the ‘share our values’ bs while overtly ethnically cleansing and expect a win/win. the zios have continually succeeded thru a long drawn out process of lies, subterfugue, and delay delay delay. this is a big leap. here’s something else the author wrote:
there’s a real possibility some neocons, while supportive of the settlements, are not supportive of outright total annexation or consider it a form of national suicide. or maybe they are just more comfortable with a slower less glaring pace.
I find this interesting and puzzling. Is there a real split among the right-wing Zionist? Or is Commentary just admonishing Dayan for letting the cat out the bag? They obviously have no problem with the annexation process, having supported it for so many years nor have any problem with it being openly discussed in the Israeli (mostly Hebrew) press. It seems like Commentary would like the two-state and peace process fantasy to linger in the minds of the American public for another generation or so but realize that is not possible if the NY Times publicizes what is really going on in the minds of the Israelis.
It is difficult to see what to know with so much deception and the many competing voices. Obviously the NY Times editors and directors know what is happening. Could it possibly be that they are now realizing that Israel is heading off the cliff? And that they are releasing this story to warn America’s progressive Zionist that something has gone haywire in the promised land. If so, such warnings are about two decades too late.
In any case, what has to be a little heartening is that the various factions within the Zionist movement are losing their united front mentality and are giving us some glimpses of the splits that are opening up.
smart toivo
Yup.
It does raise the question, ToivoS.
Or perhaps they’ve got wind of what is happening in Fly-By-Country where support for Israel has fallen, and ennui with the protestations of ordinary Jews upholding it. It’s being spoken of sotte voce in a code Gentiles recognize among themselves; it’s not anti-semitism, but it is severe exasperation that has legs, something the congressmen are unaware of back home . . . it is being expressed on town hall phone calls but they’re not hearing it.
@MRW
Has support fallen? My impression is that most Americans don’t know anything about this issue and don’t care, or they support Israel because the MSM and the politicians do.
@ chinese box
Support for Israel in the US has always been two things among the general public…1)a general disinterest spun as support just because there was no active protest against it…and….2)the Evangelical right wing such as Hagee and a few others who actively supported it.
Things started changing years ago as more people became aware of the true story around Israel-I/P and the US….mainly thanks to the net information and activism. Critical comments by the general net public in the msm online Israel articles began appearing and now overwhelm the comments on anything relating to Israel.
Then the Christian churches got involved in I/P culminating in what we see now with the BDS and the Presbyterians.
Add to that various political groups like the Clifford one that did the map ad of I/P.
And the several other orgs like the CNI and If Americans Knew and Grant’s Smiths work.
And of course all the well knows like Carter and Tutu who brought attention to it, as well as academics like W&M.
It’s been a slow growing movement of different sectors and grassroots grapevines that took a while getting up any real steam.
When some party like the North Carolina DNC even considers a petition of it’s party members to put a demand for a settlement and for the US to quit funding Israel into it’s platform you know the issue “has arrived” in the public.
It is political efforts like this plus the Church efforts, plus looking at the response to ads like Cliffords , plus the various smaller groups expanding that tells you Israel is now “a issue” snaking it’s way thru the public.
The Presbyterian church having some 2 million plus members is worth several dozen million in education on Israel for the public.
It’s impossible to say how many Americans are vehemently against Isr-US-I/P, probably most of the public that uses the net for news, probably most FP addicts and followers, probably 20% of the public is fully informed and maybe another 50% questioning and wondering about the Israel-US deal and I/P.
But the cat is definitely out of the bag and in the public and not favorable for Israel.
And the fact that this has happened ”despite all the efforts” of the zionist and Israel to mushroom the US public tells you it isn’t going to go away, if anything the more they try to mushroom the more attention they will draw.
@American, I hope you’re right. I think there is a fair amount of support for cutting aid to Israel, and that Americans’ support for Israel is shallow even if widespread, among the non-Jewish population. But I think there is a general feeling that the issue is “too complex” because it requires some knowledge of history which can’t be acquired in soundbites, and they throw up their hands and write the whole thing off. Also the fact that both parties are more responsive to lobbies and interests than to constituents on a number of issues does not make me hopeful.
@ chinese box
From my perch, your assessment of the situation is most accurate. Even those few who don’t ignore the issue when it arrives for a few minutes on their news channel, they’ve had enough as soon the standard talking head cuts off the short velvet “debate” with, the customary: “The issue is complex.”
Further, I very recently watched on one of the CSPAN channels a think-tank panel discussion of how, and to what extent Romney’s foreign policy differs from Obama’s. Neither the panel, nor the room full of audience at the end Q &A even brought up the subject of Israel.
As our Kathleen often updates us, CSPAN’s Washington Journal hosts now regularly cut off discussion of Israeli conduct, AIPAC, etc. A caller’s flaming is no longer required. A few days ago, the host cut off the caller, who sounded very calm and rational, and was not using any hot-button words, as soon as he mentioned AIPAC– because it was CSPANWJ’s policy “to limit any caller to one call a month”–the host told the caller he had already called once this month. I’ve never seen that before. The show also rarely shows and reads to a guest a tweet that refers to AIPAC or Israeli treatment of the Palestinians.
Commentary is merely upset because Dayan told the truth like it is, very undiplomatic of him. He should have minced words, juggled semantics and used some euphemisms to paint a nicer, prettier, more deceptive picture.
These are mere cultural differences, however.
In Israel, speaking bluntly and openly about one’s plans is acceptable and commonplace.
Not so in the U.S.
I do believe there is a real split. The old saying 2 Jews, 5 Opinions (or whatever is) existed for a reason. Side note: do all of you commenters have like, lives, outside of this board?
Side note: do all of you commenters have like, lives, outside of this board?
Now that you ask yes I do. I spent most of this week working on my book. It has nothing to do with IP but is very scientific — evolutionary biology and that sort of thing. I spend my evenings reading political blogs and responding to them. Do you have a problem with that?
Are you one of the multitude of Stephen/Steven’s writing in that area? Did someone really start such a club?
(I’ve got a few of ‘em on my shelves – Oppenheimer, Olson, Johnson, Jones, Pinker)
ToivoS,
Sounds very interesting. Do your studies and your book overlap into evolutionary psychology?
There is a ruthless barbarism at work in Israel, so bluntly revealed by these people. Their callous indifference to anybody apart from themselves, and their fantasy that they can award themselves land and villages belonging to other people is quite ill. How can anybody indulge these fascist goons and support their obnoxious supremacism?
@ justicewillprevail,
Yeah. If X shouts out to Y, “Stop it, or I will knock your block off!” Y has the absolute moral and ethical right, indeed the righteous duty to God to take X’s property, house, and land.
Though the JTA guy emphasizes the similarity between the Dayan and Danon positions, I see a significant difference between them. Dayan, the settler spokesman writing in the Times, explicitly calls for the annexation of all of what he calls “Judea and Samaria,” including the areas still populated by Palestinians:
Whether he wants to expel (“transfer”) the Palestinians or just keep them in a permanent state of apartheid subordination isn’t clear.
By contrast, Likud MK Danon wants “the maximum land with the minimum Arab population” – i.e., “annex the Jewish communities of the West Bank” (emphasis added), while the “Palestinian residents of the West Bank… would continue to live in their own — unannexed — towns,” presumably with the PA or something like it continuing to manage and police them under Israeli supervision and the rest of the world covering the expense..
The interesting thing about this distinction: once you bring the settlers’ take-it-all perspective into the mainstream discussion, Dayan’s we’ll-just-take-what-we-want line becomes the “centrist” position, a “compromise” between the two “extremes” of complete annexation and a territorial division along anything even remotely resembling the 1967 lines. I’ll bet it won’t be long before Netanyahu comes out with the same plan – and frames it the same way. (After all, he and Danon are in the same party.) And whoever is in the White House, Washington will lavish all kinds of praise on this scheme for its “balance” and “moderation.”
Not to be too cynical or conspiracist, but perhaps this explains why the N.Y. Times chose to print the settler position at this point.
The mainstream (Likud and neoconservative) opinion is the same as that enunciated by Bill Kristol a few months back. No reason to mess with the status quo (for the foreseeable future).
Bill Kristol is the de facto ambassador to America for Israel’s lebensraum and lebensborn policies.
The JTA’s report clearly indicates that while Mandel and other U.S. conservatives oppose Dayan’s bid to conquer the West Bank, the settler leader is backed by the Israeli government’s ruling party.
Point.
But not just Likud. Shas has been a part/driver of most, if not all, Israeli coalitions for the past, what, 30 years. Admittedly, the fundy drivers of Israeli coalition politics are far more prevalent, bloc-ish, and therefore more difficult to ignore under Likud, but this latest claim that the WB is Israel is not isolated behavior or political opinion or political behavior.
If there is anyone in Israeli politics that genuinely wants to solve this problem with justice and durable peace for all involved, they will have to embrace the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli (and the related bloc) parties as coalition partners. ‘Til then, one can only conclude that there is no genuine desire to resolve this equitably and durably.
I don’t see this embrace happening, but it could. Too much rock and hard place politics in place from decades of believing your own BS in Israeli politics. Israel would have to risk alienating the Adelsons, Zuckermans, Pritzkers, et. al. in the hope of picking up broader, but less well connected diaspora (and gentile) support for actual peace. There would have to be another “shaking Arafat’s hand” epiphany (minus the disingenousness of Oslo), the response to which, imho, would be overwhelmingly, almost across-the-board supportive. Rabin, despite all his warts, was a positive anomaly (who got assassinated for it).
Still, the continued existence of Israel demands that Israeli leaders take a stand, embrace the voice of the disenfranchised, generate broad and willing public support to replace the fleeting, narrow, and enforced private support they now enjoy, and resolve this. Sounds viable, but then I’m not Israeli or Jewish.
One of the big concerns of Israel and within the Jewish community is the lack of identification with Israel by younger Jews. Maybe counter-intuitively (to the Israeli mindset), a move toward making leadership choices designed to actually resolve this conflict (especially, but not exclusively, meaning a complete revisit of Israel’s founding mythology) would be a source of re-identifying pride in Israel’s ability to “do the right thing.” Win-win-win-win-agonizingly long-term win.
But to liberally paraphrase Hillary, “it takes a crisis to change a mind.” I don’t think Israelis perceive the crisis yet, even though all the [bottom-up] signs are there.
FWIW. Thanks Allison.
Good informative article, Allison. Keep them coming!