Settlement Affairs: Dani Dayan: The anti-extremist

"I don't threaten my wife, and I shouldn't threaten the Israeli public. I want to sway them."

By JERUSALEM POST STAFF
Dani Dayan 88 224 (photo credit: Courtesy [file])
Dani Dayan 88 224
(photo credit: Courtesy [file])
With his business suit and tie, Dani Dayan's very appearance goes against the stereotypical media vision of a settler - sandals, a kippa and an assault rifle strapped to his shoulder. Elected only last summer as head of the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, Dayan has achieved more than a mere visual makeover of the settler leadership. Speaking to The Jerusalem Post at that time, he said that he did not plan to use violent threats or extremist language to get his point across. When he is at home, Dayan said, "I don't threaten my wife, and I shouldn't threaten the Israeli public. I want to sway them." A former director-general of the right-wing Tehiya Party, Dayan, 52, was born in Argentina and came here with his family in 1971. At 26, the then Tel Aviv resident created and headed a software company, which he sold a number of years ago. He now teaches economics and finance at the College of Judea and Samaria and lives in Ma'aleh Shomron, where he moved in 1986. A major in the reserves, Dayan refused a request to volunteer for reserve service in the summer of 2005 in protest against the Gaza withdrawal. But in his firm commitment to the development and expansion of the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria, he has struck a more flexible note than many of his peers. When he took over the reins of the council, relations were frozen among the settlers, the Prime Minister's Office and the Defense Ministry. It was assumed that the government would evacuate the 105 unauthorized outposts; the only question was when. Dayan can be credited with creating the goodwill that repaired the council's relationship with both offices. More significantly, he has transformed the debate around the outposts from evacuation to legalization. He has insisted that what is significant is the continued legalization and expansion of Jewish-owned buildings, even if in the process there is some movement of property lines. His demeanor has scored him few points with hard-liners in the settlement camp who see his approach as a betrayal of the Zionist enterprise in Judea and Samaria. Unfazed by the criticism, or the emergence of multiple grassroots extremist leaders, he has insisted that his stance has strengthened the settlement movement. While he has not changed the overall public opinion of the settlers, he has significantly shifted the debate at the governmental level. Instead of highlighting existing divisions between his council and the government, he has found a way to bond with and exploit their similarities in a manner that has the appearance of having helped cement the Jewish holdings in Judea and Samaria.