What does the Dardik affair really teach us about government policy?

Anyone trying to turn the Tal Yinon Dardik affair into a symbol of "persecution of settlers" ignores one basic fact: the one who cancelled the administrative detentions against the settlers of Judea and Samaria is Minister of Defense Israel Katz.

He not only decided to stop this policy but also cancelled the existing orders—despite sharp opposition from Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara and a media attack that continues to this day. This is a significant decision, as administrative detention is one of the most extreme tools available to the state: deprivation of liberty without an indictment, based on classified intelligence, originally intended for fighting terror. Therefore, the decision to stop using it against settlers marked a dramatic policy shift.

Today, the policy is clear. Administrative detention orders are used only against those suspected of terrorist activity against the State of Israel—whether it is drone smugglers from the Negev or those suspected of involvement in terror in the Galilee. For a normative citizen suspected of an offense, the correct path is a police investigation, evidence, an indictment, and a court.

However, this is where confusion arises. The cancellation of administrative detentions did not remove all security powers. In exceptional cases, when there is intelligence that cannot be exposed, the law still allows the GOC Central Command to issue a restriction of residence order, in accordance with Shin Bet recommendations.

This is a completely different tool from administrative detention, with different, more limited authority intended to deal with specific security risks.

In the case of Tal Yinon Dardik, according to competent authorities, he repeatedly violated the restriction order issued against him—six times—and was therefore arrested by the police and remains in detention by virtue of a District Court decision. At the same time, alternatives were offered to him: immediate release and relocation to a place of residence outside Area B, or the use of an electronic tag that would allow him wider freedom of movement under supervision. He rejected both offers outright.

From here, the debate is no longer personal; it is political. Dardik seeks to change the government's policy regarding settlement in Area B. The Cabinet, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, unanimously decided not to allow settlement in Area B for political and settlement considerations. Anyone who thinks the policy is wrong should say so openly and argue with the government, rather than turning Dardik into a tool for political struggle.

The attitude toward the Shin Bet, led by David Zini, also requires perspective. Criticism and disagreement are integral parts of democracy, but turning the entire organization into a punching bag is a serious mistake.

These days, the Shin Bet is dealing with Iranian attempts to assassinate senior state officials, Arab terror in Judea and Samaria, attempts to organize terror among Israeli Arabs, and violent phenomena from a handful of extremists that harm, first and foremost, the settlement movement itself. The damage is not theoretical—it is expressed in international sanctions imposed on organizations identified with the settlement enterprise, such as "Nachala," "Im Tirtzu," and others.

Meanwhile, while the public debate revolves around one case, the government is promoting the greatest settlement revolution Israel has ever known: 104 new settlements have already been approved, and another decision is expected soon to recognize about 160 farms. This is a large-scale move led by Minister of Defense Katz and Minister of Finance Smotrich, with the backing of the Prime Minister.

It is legitimate to argue about policy. But it is impossible to ignore what is happening on the ground: on one hand, the cancellation of administrative detentions, unprecedented promotion of settlement, and preference for regular criminal proceedings over exceptional tools; and on the other, an attempt to paint a completely opposite reality.

Anyone who really wants to strengthen the settlement movement should look at the big picture and not let one storm, however large, erase the unprecedented steps taking place on the ground.