The Likud has changed, not Dayan

The political system apparently is not forgiving Uzi Dayan. And the media, which used to pamper him quite a bit, greeted his decision to join the Likud with criticism as well as considerable cynicism.

The criticism came in spite of the fact that at the press conference where he announced his decision, an occasion where one would expect the new recruit to praise the ideological path of his new home, Dayan presented an independent line that did not contradict his political record. But most members of the media chose to ignore this, perhaps because Dayan's move may strengthen Benjamin Netanyahu.

They can relax: Dayan, as has been proven in previous elections, is not a major vote bringer. Moreover: Quite a number of Likud members, including those who strongly object to Netanyahu's wooing of reinforcements such as Dayan and Dan Meridor, will vote for the right-wing parties. Netanyahu probably knows that, and he does not expect a dowry of votes from these new members, but rather to strengthen the pragmatic wing, which is distancing itself from the Likud's traditional ideology.

Regarding Dayan's views on the main national issues, one can say that he belongs to the large and lukewarm camp that includes Kadima, the Labor Party (which he also considered joining, according to reports) and to a great extent, today's Likud as well. The differences between them are slim.

Dayan, the man behind the separation fence, still believes in it, as he said at the press conference. In his preliminary agreement with Netanyahu, the two also agreed that when the Likud comes to power, the fence construction will be accelerated. The main reason for the fence is political, rather than security-based - it divides the western part of the Land of Israel and leaves about 90 percent of Judea and Samaria outside Israeli sovereignty. Nevertheless, he promised to complete it.

The change, therefore, is not Dayan's, as his critics claimed, but rather to Netanyahu's Likud. The Likud head has taken another step to sever his party from the broader camp, with its ideology and its proven capacity to sacrifice and to realize its ideals. He is joining an admittedly larger camp, whose ideological vagueness has led its security and political path to fail for the past two decades. Just when the public has begun to recognize this failure, Netanyahu is embarking on the path of vagueness, which lacks a goal, and therefore lacks a clear destination, too.

When no ideology exists or remains, we get policy like that of the most recent prime ministers, who mostly reacted, while others - especially the terror organizations - initiated most of the moves to which Israel responded with weakness, hesitation, a high cost in human life, resources and a loss of reputation and deterrence.

Most Israelis, particularly since the Second Lebanon War and the Olmert affairs, are despondent. How will it end, they ask. Netanyahu could have inspired hope, had he not changed directions. But he too, like his predecessors Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, chose to blur the once-clear path of the camp he now heads.

Had Netanyahu remained faithful to the path of his youth, he could have quoted the words of another Dayan - Moshe. This man of the Labor camp spoke in a language that no Likud member can use in total faith today: "The only, basic reply that we can give to the question 'What will be,' is to continue to fight," said Uzi Dayan's uncle exactly 40 years ago. "Hamenuha ve'hanahala (literally: peace and settlement - achieving an end to travails and a state of tranquility), is a desirable aspiration, but not a realistic one," he said, speaking at the graduation ceremony of an officers' training course. "We must prepare ourselves emotionally and physically for a prolonged process of struggle, rather than setting a timetable for achieving tranquility."

Unfortunately, there has been no fundamental change since 1968, aside from the desire not to hear Moshe Dayan's voice of truth. His basic, correct statement, especially after two decades when every possible sacrifice has been made - in vain - in order to achieve peace, is what must guide those at the helm, and not the false and empty slogans that have led to the many disasters of recent years.