Dr. Aaron Lerner responds to Peace Now "Excuse me, your bias is showing..."
7 November 2009

Noam Shelef issued an offer to me on the Peace Now website that I endorse
requiring a national referendum to approve settlement construction as well
as agreements that involve territorial concessions.

[He offered it on the website - but didn't actually send me a
message with the offer - but thanks to Google Alert I received the item in
my e-mail mailbox. But that's not the point of this note.]

There is a fundamental difference between settlement construction and
territorial concessions Israel makes in diplomatic agreements and
implements.

Reversibility.

As was well illustrated in the retreat from Gaza and destruction of
settlements in northern Samaria under the Sharon Administration, settlements
can be unilaterally removed by Israel without requiring either the
cooperation or approval of third parties..

In sharp contrast, Israel cannot unilaterally retake territory it ceded to
another country without profound diplomatic and other consequences.

So a politician who betrayed his constituents by promising them to, for
example, keep the Golan, in order to get elected and then cut a deal to hand
it over to Syria might very well get the boot come election time - but the
Syrian would still have the Golan.

This fundamental difference was recognized in the Oslo agreements. Changing
the status of territory was banned - not settlement construction.

Article XXXI Paragraph 7 of the Interim Agreement: "Neither side shall
initiate or take any step that will change the status of the West Bank and
Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations."
The meaning of "status" means "legal status". A violation of the agreement
would take place if Israel annexed part of the West Bank or Gaza Strip or
the PA declared an independent state in the area before the negotiations
were concluded. Israeli settlement activity is no more a violation of the
Agreement than Palestinian construction.

This is not just an Israeli interpretation.

"the Oslo agreement was not clear in the need to stop the settlement
machine"

That's straight from "The political agenda of the national liberation
movement Palestinian "Fatah" Submitted to the Sixth Conference of the
Movement " June 28, 2009 Draft.

www.fatehconf.ps/pdfs/fatehpolitical.pdf

Dr. Lerner's response does little to dissuade me from my conclusion that his call for a referendum on territorial withdrawal is a tactical one, based on his opposition to any Israeli withdrawal. It does not appear to have anything to do with democratic ideals, or as he originally phrased it, to "enable the electorate to impact policy."

Allow me to make two brief points in response to the substance of his reply.

First: The basic thesis of Lerner's response is that because of the profound "diplomatic and other consequences" of retaking territory, territorial withdrawal requires a referendum.

But his argument begs the question: What about the profound "diplomatic and other consequences" of settlement expansion?

Lerner may not agree, but many Israelis understand that failing to reach a two-state solution poses an existential threat to Israel. As former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said "if the solution of two states for two peoples is not realized - and Israel will have to deal with a reality of one state for two peoples - that this could bring about the end of the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. That is a danger one cannot deny..."

Continued settlement expansion complicates the effort to reach a two-state solution (in addition to stretching Israel's lines of defense and posing a fiscal burden on Israel). As such, any impartial observer should agree that it reasonably rises to the threshold of profound consequences.

Put simply: What could be more profound than threatening Israel's existence?

Second: Lerner cites the 2005 removal of settlements as proof of the reversibility of settlement construction. But he seems to have forgotten that Israel has also "reversed" the ceding of territory.

History lessons can be dull. So here's a short version: In 1956 Israel captured the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip from Egypt, but quickly withdrew under international pressure. When it re-took the Sinai (along with the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan) in 1967 the international community (in UN Security Council Resolution 242) called on Israel to return territories occupied in the war, but placed this call on equal footing with the need for Arab states to make peace with Israel. Thus, not only was Israel's 1956 withdrawal from the Sinai reversed, Israel's reversal of this withdrawal provided it with significant diplomatic gains.

[Allow me also to correct the record regarding Lerner's charge that I did not send him the offer to respond. In fact, I posted the link to this entry on his Twitter account. A link, I must now presume, he did not check. I'm pleased that his Google Alert settings helped bridge this divide, and I will be sure to email this update to him.]

Finally, if I might offer a word of advice to Dr. Lerner, it is that there is no shame in holding strong political opinions. I welcome his continued commentary and his editorial selection regarding the articles he sends to his distribution list. But he should be direct and truthfully about his agenda. Packaging his political sympathies in a false, pro-democracy charade distorts the important political debate that all of who care about Israel need to hold.

The issue of holding a referendum is a red herring used by the Israeli right for years whenever they thought it would be useful to delay or derail a political outcome they opposed. They dress the demand up in democratic clothing and say it's only reasonable about an issue as critical to the nation as this or that to go to the people for approval.

You'll notice Lerner never suggested there be a referendum in 1967 or 1970 to approve the settler enterprise to begin with.

For Lerner, Israel's democratically elected government (when it's not run by his friends in Likud) is not good enough. You see a "leftist" government like Ariel Sharon's isn't democratic enough because it doesn't reflect Lerner's views. So he has to create this charade of democracy & insist on a referendum.

I used to live in California where state government allows citizens to create referenda, initiatives up the wazoo. The result is there are so many initiatives & constitutional amendments put on the ballot that no one believes in the representative government, that is the state legislature, to govern or resolve any issue.

I say let the government govern. If you want to run a nation by plebicite move to California.

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.

I read and re-read Aaron Lerner's latest reply.

I slept on it. And then I read it again.

Here's what I learned:

1) Lerner doesn't like it when politicians break campaign promises.

2) Lerner lives in Raanana.

3) Lerner didn't like Sharon's handling of an internal Likud-party referendum. (This is a fascinating footnote of history where Sharon disregarded the 59,000 Likud-party members who voted against him, and proceeded with a policy backed by most of the 7 million Israelis.)

Still, two items are conspicuously absent:

1) No new substantive answer to the issue at the heart of this exchange: If a referendum is an appropriate democratic test to apply to Israeli plans for any territorial withdrawal, why is it not an appropriate test to apply prior to new construction in settlements?

2) No other issue -- other than territorial withdrawal -- for which Lerner believes a referendum is appropriate.

And so, I am left with the conclusion that Dr. Lerner's advocacy of a referendum has less to do with his concern for the "public will" then it does with his opposition to Israeli territorial withdrawals.