Friday, July 27, 2012

Seth Mandel vs. Dani Dayan

Over at Commentary, Seth Mandel writes that Dani Dayan's NYTimes op-ed offered a "wrong-headed proposal":

I left this comment:

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?

Let's expand (sorry for the pun).

Seth asserts

Yesha Chairman Dani Dayan’s New York Times op-ed is sure to rankle Mideast watchers on both sides of the issue. 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.

I really don't like political thinking based on "accepted reality".  That's not a reasoned analysis but a mind-set of psychological orientation.  If not outright weakness.  Fear of challenging. And he justifies that by portraying the article's publication this way:

...the Times chose to publish the op-ed [to assist] the American 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

Seth has three questions for Danni:

First...What about the Palestinians? he not concerned about the demographics at play? he suggesting that the Palestinians should be a permanently stateless people and that Israel would be permanently without clear national borders? 

Well, see my comment's first part above.  And what demographics are at play?  We are not threatened so much that we will lose control.

Second...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. 

Seth, there is a growing congressional force that sees this "Palestinian-driven" foreign policy as wrong, both practically, politically and morally.  Help that.  Don't help the Pals.  Don't equalize the right of self-determination.

Should [the Arab refugees from Mandate Palestine] stay that way [i.e., 'treated as second-class citizens in those countries and kept in squalor elsewhere']...[should] we ignore the humanitarian concerns altogether...

Also see above in my comment left at Commentary.

Mandel is out of gear sync.



Ted Belman weighs in.


No comments: