Those trying to turn the Tal Yinon Dardik case into a symbol of “persecution against Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria” are ignoring one basic fact: the person who canceled administrative detention orders against Judea and Samaria citizens is Defense Minister Israel Katz.
Not only did he decide to end the policy, but he also canceled orders that were already in effect—despite fierce opposition from Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara and despite a media assault that continues to this day. This is a significant decision, because administrative detention is one of the most extreme and exceptional tools the state has: deprivation of liberty without indictment, based on classified intelligence material, a tool originally intended for fighting terror. That’s why the decision to stop using it against Judea and Samaria citizens was a dramatic policy shift.
4+Today the policy is clear. Administrative detention orders are used only against those suspected of terrorist activity against the State of Israel—whether smuggling drones from the Negev or suspected connections to terror in the Galilee. For a normal citizen suspected of a crime, the proper path is police investigation, evidence, indictment, and court.
4+But here’s where the big confusion comes in. Canceling administrative detention didn’t cancel all security powers. In exceptional cases, when there’s intelligence information that can’t be disclosed, the law still allows the commander of Central Command to issue a residential restriction order, based on Shin Bet recommendations. This is a completely different tool from administrative detention, an entirely different authority, more limited, designed to deal with a specific security risk.
In Tal Yanon Dardik’s case, according to authorized sources, he repeatedly violated the restriction order issued against him—six times, and was therefore arrested by police and remains in custody by decision of the district court. At the same time, he was offered alternatives: to be released immediately and move to a residence outside Area B, and was even offered the option of an electronic bracelet that would allow him broader freedom of movement, subject to monitoring. He rejected both offers outright.
4+From here the debate is no longer just personal. It’s political. Dardik wants to change the government’s policy regarding towns in Area B. The cabinet, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, unanimously decided not to allow Jewish communities in Area B, for policy and communities considerations. Anyone who believes the policy is wrong—say so openly. Argue with the government. But don’t turn Dardik into a tool in a different political battle.
The treatment of the Shin Bet under David Zini also requires some proportion. You can criticize. You can disagree. That’s an integral part of democracy. But turning the entire organization into a punching bag is a serious mistake.
4+The Shin Bet is currently dealing with Iranian assassination attempts against senior state officials, with Arab terror in Judea and Samaria, with terror organization attempts among Israeli Arabs, and also with violent phenomena by an extremist handful that harms, first and foremost, the Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria enterprise itself. The damage isn’t theoretical—it’s also reflected in international sanctions imposed on amazing bodies identified with the Jewish Communities enterprise like “Nahala,” “Im Tirtzu” and others.
Meanwhile, while public debate revolves around one case, the government is advancing the largest Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria revolution Israel has known: 104 new communities have already been approved, and soon another decision is expected to recognize about 160 farms. This is a broad-scale move led by Defense Minister Katz and Finance Minister Smotrich, backed by the prime minister.
4+You can argue about the policy. That’s legitimate. But you can’t ignore what’s happening on the ground: on one hand, cancellation of administrative detention against residents of Judea and Samaria, unprecedented advancement of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria, and preference for regular criminal proceedings over exceptional tools; and on the other hand, an attempt to paint a completely opposite reality.
Anyone who really wants to strengthen the communities needs to look at the big picture—and not let one storm, however large, erase the unprecedented moves happening on the ground.