Yesha Chairman Dani Dayan’s New York Times op-ed is sure to rankle Mideast watchers on both sides of the issue. Dayan writes that not only is the two-state solution dead, but it should be declared so and the settlement movement should be free to expand throughout the West Bank. Although Dayan makes a couple of important points about the weakness of the current push for a two-state solution, he ignores both an accepted reality and the Palestinian people, and two of his ideas contained in the op-ed would be, if accepted, detrimental to the American foreign policy doctrine that results in such steadfast American support for Israel.
First and foremost, a majority of Israelis (usually around the 60 percent mark, sometimes higher) consistently support the two-state solution, even at a time when that proposal is clearly at a post-Oslo low point. So Dayan need not appeal to readers of the New York Times; he is far from convincing his own countrymen to join him. It is much easier to understand why the Times chose to publish the op-ed: the American left would like to frame the debate as consisting of two points of view–Dayan’s and J Street’s. Both are outside the mainstream consensus on this issue, and it is only up against Dayan’s arguments that the hard-left can appear reasonable. With regard to Dayan, there are three questions he should be asked after writing this op-ed.
First, the obvious: 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.
Second, has he 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. Does Dayan, as a political figure in a country whose right to exist is constantly being questioned by a resurging global anti-Semitism, not just in the Arab states but all over Europe, really want to weaken American support for the idea of a right to self-determination?
Additionally, Dayan writes that the return of the Palestinian refugees from around the Arab world to the Palestinian state would be a major security threat. But he also acknowledges that those Palestinian refugees are treated as second-class citizens in those countries and kept in squalor elsewhere (chiefly by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency). Should they stay that way? And isn’t a primary goal of Israeli national policy to convince the Palestinians to return to a Palestinian state, not Israel? Humanitarian concerns often clash with security concerns, but that doesn’t mean we ignore the humanitarian concerns altogether–it means we go back to the drawing board and get creative, not give up.
And finally: Dayan claims removing the settlers would be impossible. Why? Today there are no settlers in Gaza. He’s also moving the goal posts; many of the settlements would remain in Israel as part of any final-status agreement. Israel’s critics often dishonestly ignore this when speaking in broad terms about The Settlers. Dayan is making the same mistake, and playing right into their hands.
The fact is, Dayan is right that the current Palestinian leadership prefers the status quo, and are not making the effort needed to secure a deal. He’s also right that a Hamas takeover of all of the future state of Palestine would immediately nullify the peace deal, and anyone who thinks Hamas isn’t still dedicated to Israel’s destruction is not paying attention. But it would be more constructive if Dayan made these critiques of Mideast policy as part of an effort to reform the current structure of the two-state solution in ways that might make it more workable, not less.
Dayan is absolutely right on all counts .
In the long run (or maybe not so long run), Palestinians, who make up to thirds of Jordan's population, will mount a takeover of Jordan from the Hashemites and there will suddenly be a "Palestinian state." Then there will be an interesting new dynamic in which Palestinian refugees in surrounding Arab countries will have a state to return to and, at least from the 'talking points' perspective, an alternative for West Bank Palestinians, i.e., citizenship in Jordan and residence in Israel.
The Palestinians once tried a takeover and were slaughtered — hence the Black September movement. Had they been successful — and if they were successful now — the result would not be a home for the Palestinians, but an increased threat on Israel's border. Let's just be thankful that Jordan is currently calm.
Just be prepared for the inevitable.
I don't know that I agree with Dayan, but this article is not a fair critique. n nDayan doesn't say that removing the settlers would be impossible. He says "But uprooting them would be exponentially more difficult than the evacuation of the Gaza Strip’s 8,000 settlers in 2005." Does anyone think that removing the 100,000 West Bank settlers beyond the fence would be just as easy as removing 8000 from Gaza? n nAs for "moving the goal posts", Mandel writes as if he didn't read the Op-Ed. Dayan doesn't ignore that many of the settlers would be attached to Isreal in a two-state settlement, he gives numbers–350,000 total, 106,000 outside the settlement blocks. n nThe 100,000 Jews beyond the fence may not be, as Dayan says, an "irreversible fact," but it is, to paraphrase Stalin, a stubborn fact. MAybe ruling over the Palestinians in the West Bank is not a permanent solution, but I understand Isrealis who see it as the best available solution for the forseeable future. n nWhere Dayan fails is he presents no viable, permanent solution. But neither do the advocates of a two-state solution.
In reality he does. The Jordan is the border between the jewish State and the Arab state, Arabs living on the West side are Jordanian citizens, and Jews living on the East side are Israeli citizens. Thats is the fair solution, and its been there for the taking since 1922.
great post by Seth Mandel. "Greater Israel" is yet another delusional fantasy at this point…just like the Right of Return and the division of Jerusalem.
Very disappointing to see Commentary become an unforeseen advocate for the two-state final solution, which not only will lead to placing a dagger pointed at the Tel Aviv – Jerusalem heartland, but more importantly legitimizes redentist fantasies that the biblical lands of Judea and Samaria are really Arab lands over which Jews have no claim to whatsoever. The resulting delegitimation that has flowed from accepting the Arab myth that Judea and Samaria is theirs is most manifest in the massive erosion of support Israel has suffered in the western media ever since it signed the Oslo Accords. Now I am starting to understand why Newt Gingrich's most accurate statement about the Palestinians being an invented people provoked such hostility among Contention commentators. However I have yet to comprehend why those who hold high the neoconservative banner embrace policies that objectively undermine Israel and only further Islamic jihadism.
Because as American Jews, they are torn between the holy Land and the Promised Land. Thus they allow themselves the liberties in the Promised Land which they deny Jews in the Holy Land.
Yes, an invented people. There never was a people called "palestinians" in all history. Yet both Dani Dayan and Seth Mandel seem to agree that there is such a people today. However, the PLO charter, presumably representing what the "palestinians" think they are, starts its first article with the assertions that the Palestinian Arab people is part of the Arab nation and that "palestine" is part of the great Arab fatherland. So these Arabs rather frankly admit that they are Arabs, just part of the Arab nation and their presumed country is part of the pan-Arab domain.
Yes, today there are no Jews in Gaza. And a large percentage of the Jews who were expelled are still homeless, jobless or underemployed, and have yet to be compensated for their homes, their farms and their businesses. Divorce, depression and mental illness have taken a toll on people who were formerly productive and prosperous. Israel has lost a major source of year-round produce, and the greenhouses and irrigation systems that served people for years were destroyed by the Arabs within 24 hours of the Israeli withdrawal. In return, Israel got a more than tenfold increase in missile attacks against civilian centers that have made some of the border towns virutally unlivable. And international condemnation of Israel, blood libel and sympathetic excuse making for the would be genocides who filled the vacuum in Gaza have increased, not decreased. As has the misery and poverty of the Arabs left there when the Jews pulled out.____Israel should repeat this mistake 8000%-fold, in its heartland rather than along a small peripheral border?
Seth Mandel, please don't waste our time writing about Israel issues for Commentary. I can read unsubstantiated poor rhetoric like yours in the Nation or the New Republic. Please try to adhere to the venerable tradition of Commentary and include a proper representation of the opposing viewpoints and and acknowledge their plausibility, even if ultimately you reject them. I will be calling your editor to complain.
I agree completely and second this. I have been subscribing to Commentary since 1988 and I am very disappointed to see not only unsubstantiated poor rhetoric but also a profound lack of understanding of the current situation in Israel and regional politics.
"…steadfast American support for Israel" ???? nWhere have you been the last 4 years?
Don't confuse Obama and his band of Israel haters for America. For that matter don't confuse the State Deparment with America.
The 60% figure who supposedly favor a two-state solution is bogus as anyone who's been in Israel lately knows. Other than the extreme left, few Israelis want or expect a two-state solution anytime in the forseeable future. If Netanyahu announced he no longer supported a two-state solution, inadvisable as that would be, the figure would overnight shrink to 40% in favor, or less.
Yes, Israel removed Jews from Gaza. Israelis learned their lesson. Let the Israeli government try to remove Jews from some area where they are currently living. Never again. They will fire and kill if necessary to prevent this. The Israeli army knows this very well. This simply will not happen. n nThis is an example of the freedom of the right to own guns. If the "settlers" did not own guns, they would not have the freedom to live where they want to.
I concur with most of the posters. Seth Mandel doesn'e seem to understand Dayan's underlying position: a deal with the so-called Palestrinians right now is just a pipedream. The status quo- is working. And let's explode this canard that Palestinians don't have "the right to self'determination" Neither do the Kurds, the Tibetans, the Basques, the Scots and you can go on and on. What Palestinians do have is the right to vote- they vote in their local elections all the time. It would not be outside of the logical mindset to have a canton system like in Switzerland (or the states in the US) where the locals vote for local matters but defense and national security is under central rule.
Annex Area C and give full citizenship to the 120,000 Palestinian residents. Problem solved.
SM is wrong. J & S need to be annexed as soon as possible. What does have SM to say about the 850,000 Jews expelled from the Arab countries and who had all their properties stolen! Furthermore, the West and the Muslims will continue to do whatever they can to undermine Israel and the Jews. nMS is for the promotion of one more FAILED Muslim state! How many more do we need?
One problem would seem to be that you can't force a two-state solution on people who don't want one. What the Palestinian Arabs want is a one-state solution–another Arab state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. It has been amply demonstrated that they will not accept a two-state solution that leaves a viable Jewish state in place. What the still legally valid Mandate for Palestine envisioned was a Jewish commonwealth, or democratic Jewish state, in Palestine as soon as a Jewish majority was achieved there. Despite the British betrayal of the Mandate for Palestine, that Jewish majority was attained in 1950 and, according to Yoram Ettinger, doesn't seem to be in any danger of slipping. Could Arab residents become citizens of such a state? Perhaps, eventually–although that doesn't seem to be in the cards anytime in the near future. I presume they would have to swear allegiance to Israel if they wanted to be Israeli citizens. Of course, they could also live in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) without becoming citizens of Israel. But then they wouldn't have voting rights.
A recent report showed that a Paelstinian state would not be viable economically. Moreover, it will be another terror state in the Middle East only a short distance from Isarel's major cities. Add to that the fact that there are over 350,000 Jews in Judea and Samaria. nThe San Remo conference envisagioned a Jewish atate that included our ancient heartland. It is time to talk about the olny permanent and humane solution – paying Arabs to voluntarily emigrate to countries that need immigrants with money to invest. In a recent poll 71% said that they would leave if they were given suffficient inducement. This would benefit all concerned – with the exception of the corrupt Palestinian "leadership" which is getting rich on the backs of the people.
I came to expect more from Commentary. I would like to refer Mandel to the series of articles by Martin Sherman on JPost.com. Sherman compellingly proves that 2 state model is unworkable and proposes a well thought out humanitarian solution for the Palestinians. Stop this thoughtless 2 state mantra already!
Wait, Seth. Did Dani write the Arabs who refer to themselves as "Palestinians" can't have a state? He wrote that another, second state of Arabs west of the Jordan is an impossibility for Israel's security, as I understood it. Should Jordan share the political responsibility with Israel (the Arabs of Judea & Samaria stay where they are, benefit economically, educationally, health-wise, et al. but vote for institutions 50 kilometers away). After all, as you point out, the Arabs have Gaza and we know what a mess that is – for Israel, for the Arabs, for the Egyptians. Why gamble? Oh, and I really don't suggest Israel take upon itself to relieve "refugees" from the responsibility of the Arab states. We deserve so much better. Have you adopted the bad posture problem ('bending over backwards') of the progressives?
So many responded to this post already that I do not want to duplicate the effort except… nSeth Mandel writes that Dayan "acknowledges that those Palestinian refugees are treated as second-class citizens in those countries and kept in squalor elsewhere (chiefly by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency).” True indeed but his conclusion – let’s get them all into the “second state” in Judea and Samaria is a pipe dream. nNo one should be treated as second-class citizens anywhere in the world and since UNRWA fosters this status quo, it is up to the world at large and the UN as its representative to put an end to this. These people have lived in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Kuwait and what have you for years, no, for a couple of generations. After so many years, why are they still refugees? Why should they be denied rights, opportunities, legal status, citizenship? Why did other refugees resettled by UN in the years since UN was formed, adjust and adapt – but not these refugees? nIn 1945, just 3 years before the world saw the first wave of the Arab refugees, millions of ethnic Germans were ethnically cleansed from areas in what is now Czech Republic (Sudeten Germans) and from Silesia (Poland) where they lived for hundreds of years. That was authorized by Potsdam Conference and done with full acquiescence of the Allied powers. It was a form of collective punishment, no compensation for loss of property was offered. Around 2.5 million ethnic Germans were expelled to Germany from Bohemia and Moravia; the numbers for Silesian Germans are lower but in the tens of thousands. Estimates of loss of life during deportations from 20 to 200 thousands, different sources cite vastly different numbers. The expelled were eventually absorbed into Wes and East Germany with full rights of citizenship. nLeaving aside the morality of these deportations and not to condone this or any other examples of ethnic cleansing but “the German model” of absorbing the refugee population should be preferred by the world community at large over “the Arab model”. No one fostered illusions of “imminent return” and “glorious defeat of the enemy”, they experienced great hardships but were encourage to heal and resume their lives looking forward, not backward. I think the refugees about whom Seth Mandel writes so feelingly deserve the same chance given to the Bohemian, Moravian and Silesian Germans and it can only be attained by a thorough reform of the corrupt political culture of the UN and UNRWA. n
Mr. Mandel claims, "Dayan ,,, ignores both an accepted reality and the Palestinian people, and two of his ideas contained in the op-ed would be, if accepted, detrimental to the American foreign policy doctrine that results in such steadfast American support for Israel." n nSo, capitulation to US foreign policy equals ‘steadfast American support for Israel”? President Obama agrees. n nWould that Israel be defined by the 1967 or 1949 boundaries or a Blafour ‘Jewish homeland’? n nAccording to Mr. Mandel, “First and foremost, a majority of Israelis (usually around the 60 percent mark, sometimes higher) consistently support the two-state solution … “ nOthers would contest Mr. Mandel's numbers. Has Mr. Mandel forgotten that almost all of British and French opinion endorsed Appeasement? That majority support did not work out well. n nMr. Mandel’s advocates the, “American devotion to the general principle of self-determination … “ Mr. Mandel should persuade Mr. Obama to return Texas, California and New Mexico to Mexico, Florida to the Apalachee, Calusa, Choctaw, Micosukee, Tequesta, Jaga, Ais, and Timuca tribes or Spain, Alaska to Russia or the Aleuts and New England to Canada or the UK. n nFor thorough restitution, maybe all those White people descendants should return to Europe, but leave their real estate behind. Cars also. Mr. Mandel first. nIt’s only fair. n nMr. Mandel, “First, the obvious: What about the Palestinians?” nEasy: The Palestinians will recognize Israel as a Jewish state as a preclude to any negotiations and recognize the West Bank as within sovereign Israel. nProblem solved. n
After years and years of promoting hawkish and defense views and saying nothing about the settlement policy, suddenly you give Yesha some mild criticism. Nice work there — you obviously have not visited Efrat or Ariel recently. n nI always think it's helpful to look at facts on the ground. Fly into Tel Aviv and rent a car at Ben Gurion. Now, look at the map from the car rental company. Is there a green line on that map? There is not. This is the reality — for Israelis on the Right, there is no green line, and they already live in Greater Israel. n nAs a leftist, this makes me sad and not for the reasons a JDL member might suspect. It is not due to my self-hating nature. To the contrary, I am far more dedicated to my own people than I am to any other group. But I am dedicated to the original Zionist dream of my people — of a nation that is both Jewish and democratic. Greater Israel makes that impossible and thus it is the beginning of the end of the only Jewish state we have.
My, how loooowww the great thinkers at Commentary have sunk. I used to love this mag. Now it published tripe like this, a trifle above the New York Slimes. n nVery disappointing.