Dr. Aaron Lerner follow up to his response to Peace Now "Excuse me, your bias is showing..."

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
11 November 09

(The original posting was "Dr. Aaron Lerner responds to Peace Now "Excuse me, your bias is showing...". Click here to read.)

So far from the responses it is clear that withdrawal proponents are unable to address the underlying observation that there is a defect in the democratic system if politicians can take a move that permanently changes the situation in a profound way that is in gross contradiction of a specific and explicit campaign promise and that a device is required to address this problem.

[To argue that the fact that Israel retook land in a war hardly serves as comforting evidence that withdrawals are reversible should the Israeli public object to a withdrawal that Israeli politicians agreed to in defiance of their mandate.

As for the impact of settlement activity - it didn't stop PM Olmert from negotiating and presenting a radically generous offer to Mahmoud Abbas - Abbas was the problem. And by the same token it can be argued that settlement activity puts pressure on the Palestinians to talk because time is not necessarily on their side. But, again, the underlying observation is that settlement construction is not subject to the same reversibility issue as withdrawals in diplomatic agreements.]

The question is not the merits of withdrawal or the fruits of withdrawal.

The question is if the citizens of Israel should have the right to express their view and have it honored.

This tremendous fear of a national referendum on the part of withdrawal proponents only serves to indicate that they lack confidence in their ability to convince the public to support their program.

That's their problem.

I would note, by the way, that the Palestinians say that they will present any deal for approval in a national referendum.

As for the charge that I hide my agenda behind an appeal to democratic principles. I resent the attempt to avoid my point by somehow stripping me of my right to argue for my democratic rights.

I live in Israel for many reasons (I live in Raanana which is a fantastic place so you won't find me claiming it is a sacrifice - though it certainly is the case that our family has sacrificed many years in army service) and one of them is to actively participate in the history of the country. And one the key ways that I participate in the history of the country is by voting in elections. Sometimes I "win" in the elections and sometimes I "lose". But that's the way democracy works. Adding a national referendum is a device to insure I have a say when politicians decide to defy their mandate.

And if I lose?

I won't pack my bags.

We don't rent. We own.

Back when PM Sharon, certain he would win a Likud referendum on the retreat from Gaza (he argued that there wasn't time for a national referendum), approved the vote, I was - as many others - on record that we would accept the outcome, regardless of which way it fell.

I participated in what was an exciting exercise in democracy, with people going door-to-door arguing their case.

And to PM Sharon's shock, he lost the referendum.

And he then ignored the outcome and continued on his way.

A low point for Israeli democracy.

Again. I understand and appreciate that it is hardly a foregone conclusion that my position will win the day at the ballot box.

And I accept that.

But as a voting Israeli citizen I want my fair chance to participate.

[PS: It turns out that Noam Shelef sent me a note via Twitter to alert me to his comment. While I send material out via Twitter I don't check it myself, hence the incorrect comment that he did not alert me to his comment.]
.