According to opinion polls, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, is losing popularity, and voters want him to leave office after the war in Gaza ends—if not sooner. Netanyahu has faced widespread criticism for allowing the October 7th attacks to occur, and some members of his own Likud Party have argued that he is not fighting the war—which, according to the Gaza Health Ministry’s figures, has already killed nearly twenty thousand Palestinians in Gaza, forty per cent of whom were children—decisively enough. One of those members is Danny Danon, a Knesset member who has twice challenged Netanyahu for the Party’s leadership, and also served as Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations from 2015 until 2020. Danon is also a fierce opponent of a Palestinian state. (In a 2011 Op-Ed for the New York Times, he wrote that Netanyahu should “annex the Jewish communities of the West Bank, or as Israelis prefer to refer to our historic heartland, Judea and Samaria.”) The Times of Israel reported in early December that Danon is “gearing up to face Netanyahu once more.”
I recently spoke by phone with Danon. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we discussed whether Israel is trying hard enough to reduce civilian casualties, what Danon’s vision for the West Bank and Gaza is, and whether the Israeli right will ever accept a Palestinian state.
How do you think the war is going right now?
Well, we knew from the beginning that it would be hard and long, and I think we have to be strong. We didn’t start the war and we are determined to achieve the goals of the war, which is eliminating Hamas and bringing back the hostages. I think the idea is to work very precisely with a lot of power, and we have to be patient and allow them to continue to complete the mission.
So you think that the Israel Defense Forces are being precise in how they’re carrying out their mission?
I think that the I.D.F. is working slowly in order to minimize casualties for the civilians in Gaza. With that approach, it takes us more time to maneuver, but, on the other hand, I think it brings the legitimacy to continue with the war as well.
You mentioned acting precisely to avoid civilian casualties. There’s been a lot of concern, recently, from the American government, that civilian casualties are too high and are extremely high compared with other wars. How do you understand that disparity?
I think we are very transparent with our colleagues in the U.S., and they are aware of the efforts we are making to minimize civilian casualties. It’s not easy. Hamas is hiding behind babies and families and we know we cannot trust Hamas figures; they exaggerate all the time. We move slowly. If you would’ve told me that seventy days after the massacre, we will be only where we are now, I would’ve told you it’s impossible because we have a strong military with strong capabilities. But, because of the situation and the urban population, we act very cautiously.
There’s been some criticism of Netanyahu, from people on the right of his Party and other ministers, that he’s not acting boldly enough. Do you share that criticism?
Well, I think the Prime Minister is handling the war effort with a lot of responsibility and there is a lot of pressure. I think that we gave a lot of support to the Palestinians. Some people are upset that we haven’t received the visitation of the Red Cross to our hostages [in Gaza]. We just opened a checkpoint into Gaza. We hear a lot about the humanitarian requests of the Palestinians, but we feel that the world is not paying enough attention to the humanitarian requests of the Israeli hostages and their families.
You could also argue that pretty much the entire Western world has given the green light to Israel to engage in this war, no?
No. We didn’t start this war. We had a ceasefire with Hamas until October 7th. I think the international community understands very clearly that we had no choice.
Do you personally feel a lot of care for the civilians in Gaza? Is that something that you worry about?
I regret the loss of life of any civilians, but the blame is on Hamas. The responsibility is on the shoulders of Hamas; they were the ones who initiated the fight and this act of terror. They are the ones who actually hide behind the population. And, by the way, they’re not fighting now; they are gangs of cowards. Every once in a while they pop out and they try to attack. But, if they’re so brave, I would expect them to stand up and fight with us, but that’s not the case.
Ten years ago, a soldier named Hadar Goldin was captured, and in the aftermath you said that if you don’t get the soldier back in a few hours, “We should start leveling Gaza.” Do you think that quotes like that make people think that the Israeli government doesn’t care enough about civilian casualties?
You have to look at what we’re actually doing in Gaza today, and we proved to the world that we actually take civilians into consideration. The fact is that we evacuated northern Gaza and we delayed the ground operation for weeks for that. It shows that we are serious about that.
I think when people saw the news last week that three Israeli hostages had been shot, mistakenly, by the I.D.F., many interpreted it as a sign that Israeli forces were aggressive with people that they thought were enemies, even if they didn’t have weapons.
We regret having a tragic incident. We didn’t expect to see any civilians there, and, in the past, there were many traps that Hamas used in order to capture the attention of our soldiers. So I cannot blame the soldiers. We will learn the lesson for the future, but we have very clear orders that we do not target civilians. Period.
You once suggested that for every rocket strike by Hamas, Israel should “retaliate by deleting a neighborhood in Gaza.” That sounds like a form of collective punishment, rather than doing everything to avoid civilian casualties.
From when is this quote that you are quoting now?
It is from about a decade ago.
O.K., so I think you should be reading quotes from the last two months. We are engaging in a war. Today we have a policy and we have boots on the ground, and we can argue about the way they behave and the way we actually use the power that we have. And I think you will not find any other military with more morals than the I.D.F., especially after the atrocities that were committed against Israelis during October 7th, the kidnapping, the raping, and burning people alive.
O.K., but you understand why people might have concerns, though? I know your quote—
I don’t.
O.K. You don’t, O.K.
No, no, I don’t. I don’t and I gave you an answer. We have a war now. So it’s not an academic deliberation about what Israel might do, or can do. We are fighting now for more than two months, and so we can argue about that. It’s not something about who said what ten years ago. It’s about what we are actually doing now when we’re fighting terrorists in Gaza.
And quotes from the Prime Minister referring to violent passages in the Bible about the need to slaughter all people in a rival kingdom?
I look at the actions of the Israeli government. We are committed to minimizing the loss of lives of civilians.
You said I was using quotes from ten years ago. You did say today, “We must apply more force and be less humanitarian.” Correct?
No. No, I don’t recall it that way. I said that we have our humanitarian needs as well, and, whenever people are asking us about the humanitarian requests for the people in Gaza, we have to ask about our humanitarian needs, especially the hostages.
I see. O.K.
Whenever people come to us with demands about humanitarian requests regarding Gaza, we have to bring up our humanitarian requests as well.
I was reading an old article you wrote where you were talking about the future of Israel and the Palestinians, and you wrote, “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.” This was about your plan to annex large chunks of the West Bank ten years ago. What is it now?
My vision is still the same. Our goal is to have minimum interference with the lives of the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria, but maximum responsibility for security issues. We don’t want to put our security in the hands of the Palestinians, and, now, after October 7th, it’s much more relevant than before. So the goal is to allow maximum freedom for the Palestinians to run their daily lives with minimum threat to us.
So the Palestinians who are in the West Bank now, they would sort of be in little enclaves that are not annexed? I’m trying to understand how that would work.
No. I don’t think we can get to the actual definition now, but I think when we look at the goal, the goal should be that we don’t run the Palestinian cities, or lives, or education, or economy—but, at the same time, we have to make sure that the security issues are being addressed. That should be the goal.
And so there would be no Palestinian state, correct?
When I look at the Palestinian Authority, instead of becoming a peaceful entity the P.A. itself was not able to condemn the terror attack of October 7th until now, so what kind of a state can one imagine? [Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the P.A., condemned the targeting of civilians on “both sides,” after October 7th; one of his aides told the Times of Israel that he will not publicly condemn Hamas while the war is ongoing.] When you look at the Oslo Accords, the idea was to develop a moderate society that would support coexistence. Unfortunately, it’s not going that way.
You opposed the Oslo Accords, correct?
I think those Accords were a mistake. We are paying a heavy price because of that. We brought back terrorists into the region and, instead of bringing stability, it brought instability to the region.
The reason I’m asking about the Oslo Accords is because you said just now that, after October 7th, security had to be paramount, but this was your position well before October 7th, correct? That the Oslo Accords were a mistake, and that settlement building—
Yeah. My position was clear before. Today the majority of Israelis support my position because of what happened on October 7th. Even people who were considered more optimistic about the peace opportunities are now much more realistic.
So why did you oppose a Palestinian state for basically your whole career? I want to understand that, because you’re saying now it’s about security, but did you always oppose a Palestinian state for security, or was it more because you believe that the land that many Palestinians live on now in the West Bank rightfully belongs to Jews?
I think I told you five minutes ago exactly the vision in terms of the goal. When I negotiate on behalf of my country, I put the interest of my country first, and I think many were willing to pay a price in order to achieve peace. Today, we are more realistic. Today, we don’t have that debate anymore in Israel, and I think I was very realistic about whom we are dealing with. I was skeptical about the intention of Yasser Arafat back then, and I’m skeptical today. So maybe one day there will be a peaceful leadership among the Palestinians. It’s similar to what happened with Egypt, with President Anwar Sadat, and we saw real intentions for living peacefully in the region. But that is not the case today. Unfortunately, we are not seeing it happening now.
But peace would not mean a Palestinian state, right? What would peace mean in your mind?
I don’t think now we have to go into that debate. I realize that the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria are not going anywhere. I think once the leadership of the Palestinians would realize that we also are not going anywhere, then maybe we’ll be able to move forward. But, when we looked at what happened with Hamas and with the reaction of the P.A. to what happened, that is not the case. We’re determined to stay here.
I think both sides need to realize that the other side is not going to just get up and leave and that is important. It’s something that both sides need to hear. But haven’t you proposed a plan for what you call “voluntary emigration” for citizens of Gaza to where? Egypt?
I published a plan for the day after the war in Gaza ends. I don’t know if you saw that.
That’s what I’m referring to.
In part of the plan, we have the idea of voluntary emigration. The idea is to offer those who want to move out the possibility to move out. I think many countries should offer [Palestinians the opportunity] to come and live there or work there. Turkey speaks very highly about the Palestinians, and Qatar, and Iran. They should be the first ones to offer them the possibility to immigrate, but I think also other countries in the region, and in the world, should consider it. We don’t want all the Gazans to move out, but if we allow those people who want to move out, or to work in different locations, I think it can support those who would stay in Gaza. And I think it’s a necessity. The same way that Palestinians in [the West Bank] are able to move to other places to work, to study, I think we should offer the same opportunity to all the people in Gaza.
That’s very generous of you.
It is not being generous. I’m realistic. When you look at the size of Gaza and the amount of people who live there and you think about this sustainability, you realize that you need to think about this idea.
There have been reports that you want to run for Likud leadership. Is that accurate?
No. I’m not dealing with politics now. I’m focussed on the war efforts. I think we have to be very determined and win the war. I ran for the position in 2014. I received, I believe, thirty per cent of the votes back then when I went against Netanyahu. [Danon received twenty per cent of the vote.] After we win the war, we will have to look at all of the inquiries and to learn what happened and deal with all those issues.
It seems like the main point that you have been making in this conversation is that the Palestinians have blown their chance to have a state. They’ve made mistakes. They haven’t dealt with security. My understanding, looking at your whole long career, is that even if October 7th had not happened, you still wouldn’t believe in a Palestinian state, and your Party wouldn’t believe in a Palestinian state. So I’m trying to understand that tension there.
No. I think today to speak about a Palestinian state is not realistic. In the past, Prime Minister Netanyahu, not me, said he was willing to consider a Palestinian state. He gave a speech, I think, in 2009.
And you criticized him for that, right?
Correct. But the idea was that you want to find an entity that will be peaceful, and you’re going to have a neighbor like Switzerland, but it’s not the case. And, today, I think more people realize that my position was the right position, to be skeptical about the [Palestinian] leadership, and I stress “leadership,” because I believe that once you can have a genuine leadership who will be willing to discuss peace, then they will find willingness in Israel, and we proved it in the past. But the day is not there yet, so we’re going to have to wait for that day to come when there will be a leader that will emerge to lead the Palestinians to peaceful negotiation with Israel. And now you’re going to ask me again about what would be the end of the negotiation, and I will not answer that.
Right, you were always known as someone who was an opponent of the two-state solution, no matter what.
Well, I think I’m very realistic. I was against the disengagement from Gaza in 2005. I told Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that they will use it as a base of terror. And he told me that I’m exaggerating, and it will bring more security to Israel. And I think that I was right back then. And, in 2014, when I said that we should go into Gaza, Netanyahu accepted a ceasefire that was enforced by Secretary John Kerry, and I was fired from my position as deputy minister of defense. So, yes, I stick to my ideas. I stick to my line. ♦
