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.
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.
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.
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.