In Praise of Netanyahu – Supported Referendum Law Despite Personal Ramifications

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
Weekly Commentary
25 November '10

“3. 1A (a) The government will not ratify an agreement that requires ratification and will not sign an agreement that does not need to be ratified, according to which the law, jurisdiction and administration of the State of Israel shall not apply to territory, including an agreement that includes a commitment for the future and a commitment that is conditional, except after the agreement is approved by the Knesset and in a referendum, in accordance with the provisions of this Law.” National Referendum Law

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu deserves praise for facilitating the passage of the referendum law this week.

It is an important piece of legislation that will require a national referendum for pretty much any deal involving the Palestinians (even an agreement not involving Jerusalem would require a referendum if it included the swap of even one centimeter of land within the Green Line).

With the law in place, factions in the national camp know that they would have a shot at defeating an agreement even if a different coalition is in power.

Put in the most brutal of terms: they can punish Netanyahu if he goes too far even at the risk that the move ultimately brings the Left to power.

And an even more cynical view: if Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu cuts a deal with the Arabs he will join forces with the Left in the referendum battle against what remains of the national camp. In contrast, if he sits in the opposition, Binyamin Netanyahu and his Likud party can be expected to lead the campaign to defeat the agreement at the ballot box.

Mr. Netanyahu could have cited “diplomatic considerations” and indefinitely postponed the vote on the national referendum law. But he didn’t.

Instead he put that national interest ahead of his personal interest in staying in power.

And for this he most definitely deserves praise.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The Public Be Damned

Evelyn Gordon
Contentions/Commentary
24 November '10

Jonathan noted yesterday that foreign critics are outraged by Israel’s passage of a law this week mandating referenda on certain types of territorial concessions. But their outrage doesn’t hold a candle to that of Israel’s own left.

In today’s editorial, for instance, Haaretz complained bitterly that “the public is being given veto power over crucial decisions on foreign policy and security issues.” By “handcuffing the political leadership’s moves in the peace process,” it charged, Israel is spitting in the world’s face.

Labor Party chairman and Defense Minister Ehud Barak similarly complained that “this is not a good law,” because the world will think “Israel is rejecting peace and is handcuffing itself to avoid progress in the diplomatic process.”

These arguments are mind-boggling. First, why should anyone in the democratic world object to giving the public a say in “crucial decisions on foreign policy and security”? Haaretz’s editors would evidently prefer a dictatorship of Plato’s philosopher-king, with themselves on the throne. But democracies are supposed to give the public a say in crucial decisions.

That’s why Britain, for instance, held a referendum on joining the European Economic Community, while France held one on leaving Algeria. In the U.S., this goal is achieved by requiring treaties to be ratified by a two-thirds Senate majority, which is unachievable without significant bipartisan consensus.

But the even more shocking assumption behind these plaints is that, given a choice, the public would reject any deal likely to be signed — yet the government should sign it anyway, and the public be damned.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Israel’s Critics Are Afraid of Democracy

Jonathan Tobin
Contentions/Commentary
23 November '10

Yesterday’s vote by Israel’s Knesset to require a referendum to ratify any peace deal that involved the surrender of Jerusalem or the Golan Heights is being slammed in the Arab world as well as by other foes of the Jewish state. For Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, such a vote would be an “obstacle” to peace. Similarly, Israel Lobby author Stephen Walt believes it means the end of the two-state solution, since it “gives a veto to the hard-line settler faction.”

Such claims are laughable. In fact, assuming that the Palestinians were themselves interested in actually signing a peace deal (something they have repeatedly declined to do even when offered virtually all the West Bank, Gaza, and part of Jerusalem, as they were in 2000 and 2008), the knowledge that any accord would have to be ratified by a referendum in which Israelis could vote it up or down would make it more, not less, likely to be accepted by an Israeli government.

One of the problems that helped undermine Israeli support for the Oslo process was the fact that a narrow parliamentary majority rammed it down the country’s throat. Even worse, the follow-up agreement to the first accord, known as Oslo II, was only secured after two members of the now defunct right-wing Tsomet Party crossed the aisle to Labor in exchange for promises of high office and other perks. This shady process helped fuel public opposition to the deal, though it must be conceded that most of the credit for convincing Israelis that their government was on the wrong path must go to the Palestinians and the campaign of terrorism they waged even though peace was supposed to have broken out.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The Referendum Saga

Emmanuel Navon
For the Sake of Zion
30 July '10

Member of Knesset Yariv Levin has recently tried (unsuccessfully, so far) to pass a law that would compel the Government to organize a referendum before approving any transfer of territorial sovereignty in the framework of a peace agreement. Such a law is meant to give Israel’s citizens a veto power over a possible Israeli withdrawal from East Jerusalem and from the Golan Heights (both of which were annexed by Israel in 1967 and 1981 respectively).

While Levin’s proposal has many opponents in the Knesset and elsewhere, one surprising support came from Daniel Ben-Simon, a Labor MK and former journalist for Ha’aretz. A staunch opponent of referenda like most of his peers, Ben-Simon explained his unexpected volte-face by claiming that a majority of Israelis would approve a withdrawal from the Golan according to a recent poll. We should be thankful to Ben-Simon for being so candid. It’s not that he opposes referenda because he believes they infringe upon representative democracy. Rather, a referendum is acceptable only if voters give the “right” answer.

This patronizing hypocrisy is reminiscent of the European Commission’s attitude toward popular votes. For Brussels’ eurocrats, simple citizens are not smart enough to know what’s good for them and to understand that nationalism is evil. Referenda grant unsophisticated hordes a veto power over the right decisions of the philosopher-king. Indeed, the French, the Dutch and the Irish had to effrontery to say “no” to the European Constitution. True, there is a solution to the aggravations of democracy: you keep organizing referenda until people get it “right” (it worked with the Irish). But it’s cumbersome.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

For Once, Israel’s Knesset Does Its Job

Evelyn Gordon
Contentions/Commentary
15 July '10

Israel’s Knesset took two important steps yesterday. First, a committee forwarded a bill to the plenum for final reading that, if passed, would for the first time subject territorial concessions to real ratification requirements. Second, the plenum gave preliminary approval to a bill that would, for the first time, impose sanctions on those who promote anti-Israel boycotts.

The boycott bill, which will now proceed to committee, would make Israelis who “instigate,” “encourage,” or “assist” boycotts against Israel or Israeli institutions subject to fines of up to NIS 30,000 even if no damage is proved, and more if damage is proved. Foreigners or foreign entities that do the same could be barred from the country and denied the right to use Israeli banks, land, or stocks. The bill would also allow boycott damages to be deducted from Israel’s remittances to the Palestinian Authority should the latter continue promoting anti-Israel boycotts.

The bill, co-sponsored by 27 MKs from seven parties, is modeled on America’s anti-boycott laws. Ironically, those laws were passed in the 1970s in response to the Arab boycott of Israel. But at that time, Israel saw no need to imitate them: what Israeli then would have promoted a boycott of his own country?

It is a sad comment that today such a law is necessary, as Israelis are at the forefront of the anti-Israel boycott movement. Nevertheless, it’s encouraging that mainstream Israel is finally fighting back: if enacted, boycott promoters would finally be forced to weigh the acclaim and lucrative awards their behavior wins from like-minded peers abroad against a real price.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Protecting Israel's Democracy

Jameel
The Muqata
14 July '10

An interesting piece of legislation is about to be presented to the Knesset for its second and third reading (which would make it law), having passed today in the Knesset House Committee.

The "Referendum Law" states that should the Israeli government approve a withdrawal from territory under full Israeli sovereignty (i.e., the Golan Heights, Eastern Jerusalem, parts of pre-1967 Israel alongside the Gaza strip, but not Yehuda vShomron/West Bank) – then the decision will be put to a vote in the Knesset. Once passed in the Knesset, a national referendum will be held within 180 days. Only a vote of 80 (or 90) Knesset members or more can prevent a referendum from being required to implement the withdrawal.

This law's origin is based on the problem that Israeli politicians routinely run on one platform, and then do an about-face after elections, and reject their previous platform. Examples include Yitzchak Rabin and the Oslo Accords, in which the entire issue was hidden from the public's eye till it was announced. The Oslo 2 Accords only passed in the Knesset by a 1 person majority (61-59) after Rabin bribed 2 MKs to abandon their party's platform in exchange for a Ministerial position and a Mitsubishi car and driver.

Ariel Sharon, the previous "champion of Israel's security and supporter of Jewish settlement" did a radical about face in the middle of his term, leading Israel's disengagement from Gaza, despite having won the election against the publicly stated disengagement platform of the head of the Labor party, Amnon Mitzna. This also despite Sharon's promise to abide by the public referrendum of the Likud party's membership on the issue of Disengagement, in which the Disengagement idea was rejected by an overwhelming 69% to 29%.

What I found amazing was an interview with MK Daniel Ben-Simon (Labor) who announced on IDF radio this morning that this law was a threat to democracy and would diminish the sovereignty of the Knesset.

The "sovereignty of the Knesset"? By putting a vote into the hands of the people, that impedes the representatives of the people? That impacts our democracy?

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Special-majority referendum on territorial concessions advancing democracy & peace

Yoram Ettinger
The Ettinger Report
11 December 09

A special-majority referendum constitutes an acceptable procedure in Western democracies, when faced with exceptional – and sometimes irreversible – decisions, such as territorial concessions in the Golan Heights and in Judea and Samaria.

Contrary to opponents of a special-majority referendum - as a prerequisite for territorial concessions – such a procedure protects individual rights, national security and democracy, which are threatened by hasty decisions made under the influence of domestic and international pressure, impacted by exceptionally emotional developments and supported by a slim, tenuous majority, which could be transformed summarily into a minority. Special-majority referendums check an imperial executive branch of government, which wishes to dominate the legislature and to ignore public opinion.

For example, the "Evian Accords" which led to France's withdrawal from Algeria, were approved by two referendums in April and June 1962. President de Gaulle, who initiated the withdrawal, insisted that such an exceptional decision required a special majority, in order to prevent an internal rupture. De Gaulle insisted that a regular-majority could represent a minority of eligible voters, forge a sizeable disgruntled opposition and cause a collapse of democracy.

Charles de Gaulle understood the threat to democracy – under exceptional circumstances – if the special-majority referendum was dismissed. In 1946, the 53% majority which approved the constitution of the Fourth French Republic amounted to a mere 36% minority of eligible voters. Under such results, France deteriorated to the verge of a civil war in 1958.

(Continue article)

Related: The 3A Booby Trap Must Be removed From Referendum Law, Background: Referendum law would apply to "border adjustments" - but referendum avoidable via elections
.

The 3A Booby Trap Must Be removed From Referendum Law

Weekly Commentary
Dr. Aaron Lerner
www.imra.org.il
10 December 09

Media coverage of the proposed law requiring a national referendum in the instance that less than 80 MKs support transferring sovereign Israeli territory has for the most part ignored the potentially critical Subparagraph 3A.

Here is a rough translation:

"Despite what is written in Paragraph 3(A), if the Knesset approved the Government decision as per Paragraph 2, and within 180 days from the day that the Knesset approved [AL: with less than 80 MKs] there are Knesset elections, a national referendum will not be held; The said Government decision will be considered as if it was approved by a national referendum on the thirtieth day after the formation of the Government that was formed after the election, or at an earlier date that the Government decided on it, unless it decided to cancel said Government decision as per Paragraph 2."

The explanatory commentary accompanying the proposed law takes the position that the Knesset elections would in effect be a national referendum since it would no doubt be a major issue of the election campaign.

But - and this could be a very big but - nothing would stop a ruling coalition that came to power by promising voters that "a vote for party X is a vote against deal Y" from defying its mandate and declining to cancel the previous Government's decision within the 30 days.

In fact, since the prime minister has absolute control over the agenda of cabinet meetings, he can simply refuse to bring up cancellation of the previous Government's decision to a vote for 30 days.

And this when, no doubt, the prime minister would be facing tremendous world pressure not to cancel the decision.

Far fetched?

Hardly. And the media would no doubt praise the prime minister for "acting
responsibly".

OK.

So let's assume for a moment that a newly elected Government brought to power because it opposed the agreement the previous Government reached would actually honor and respect its mandate and vote to cancel the deal.

What does the country gain by requiring a cabinet vote?

Let's think this through:

By definition we would have a new prime minister heading a ruling coalition that defeated the previous coalition that supported the deal.

So which scenario would better serve Israel's interests?

That the new prime minister can tell the world that his "hands are tied" by the outcome of the referendum and the deal is off?

Or

That the new prime minister has to raise his own hand to cancel an agreement that, no doubt, enjoyed the backing of the United States and other important countries?

That's a no brainer.

Here's an idea.

Instead of dropping the referendum in the instance that there are elections, why not have citizens cast their ballots in the referendum at the same as they vote in the Knesset elections?

Related: Special-majority referendum on territorial concessions advancing democracy & peace, Referendum law would apply to "border adjustments" - but referendum avoidable via elections
.

Background: Referendum law would apply to "border adjustments" - but referendum avoidable via elections

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
09 December 09

While most discussions of the proposed referendum law relate to its being applied to the case of a deal involving the Golan or Jerusalem, the law also would apply to border adjustments - no matter how small - as long as they entail transferring sovereign Israeli territory.

While the proposed law requires a national referendum in the instance that less than 80 MKs support transferring sovereign Israeli territory, the referendum would not be required if elections are held.

"Despite what is written in Paragraph 3(A), the Knesset approved the Government decision as per Paragraph 2, and within 180 days from the day that the Knesset approved [AL: with less than 80 MKs] there are Knesset elections, a national referendum will not be held; The said Government decision will be considered as if it was approved by a national referendum on the thirtieth day after the formation of the Government that was formed after the election, or at an earlier date that the Government decided on it, unless it decided to cancel said Government decision as per Paragraph 2."

The explanatory commentary accompanying the proposed law takes the position that the Knesset elections would in effect be a national referendum since it would no doubt be a major issue of the election campaign.

But - and this could be a very big but - nothing would stop a ruling coalition that came to power by promising voters that "a vote for party X is a vote against deal Y" from defying its mandate and declining to cancel the previous Government's decision within the 30 days.

In fact, since the prime minister has absolute control over the agenda of cabinet meetings, he can simply refuse to bring up cancellation of the previous Government's decision to a vote for 30 days.

And this when, no doubt, the prime minister would be facing tremendous world pressure not to cancel the decision.

Far fetched?

Hardly. And the media would no doubt praise the prime minister for acting responsibly".

Related: Special-majority referendum on territorial concessions advancing democracy & peace
.