By Ted Belman
It didn’t take long for Haaretz to post an editorial decrying the new referendum law. I was astounded by their arguments.
The law’s supporters claim that a referendum is a legitimate democratic instrument utilized by many enlightened countries in order to involve the citizenry in important decisions. In actual fact, the vast majority of referenda relate to domestic issues. In our case, the public is being given veto power over crucial decisions on foreign policy and security issues. These decisions are destined to influence the fates of many people who live under Israeli occupation. Any reasonable person knows that reapportioning sovereignty in Jerusalem is a necessary condition for a peace arrangement with the Palestinians.
If security and land isn’t a “domestic” issue, I don’t know what is. But they go on to worry about the fate of the Arabs. Finally for them, the notion of peace is more important than keeping Jerusalem. Let the people decide, not the leftist elite.
The new law is another act of expectoration smack in the face of the international community. It casts a long shadow over Israel’s commitment to United Nations resolutions, and even to international agreements to which the state is signed. Like all acts of diplomacy with neighboring Arab countries, negotiations with the Palestinians are based on UN resolutions 242 and 338, which require Israeli withdrawal from territories conquered in 1967. In the road map and Annapolis declaration frameworks, Israel obligated itself to undertake negotiations that will “end the occupation that began in the year 1967.”
To expectorate is to spit is it not. Hmmm. The international community has long spit in our face so who cares. What legitimation does a lynch mob have. Why should their opinion be respected. Israel doesn’t have a commitment to UN resolutions. Only Chap VII resolutions of the SC are to be obeyed. But what if they are not fairly made. Should we then support them. Haaretz conveniently leaves out that the negotiations according to the Roadmap include the Saudi Plan (now the Arab Initiative) and the fact that the whole world is ignoring Res 242 and 338 which require negotiated defensible borders and is insisting on ’67 borders a la the Saudi Plan. Haaretz also ignores that these resolutions were silent on Jerusalem and the Roadmap only identified Jerusalem as a final status issue. This doesn’t necessitate its division.
When Israel obligated themselves to “end the occupation”, she wasn’t committing to withdraw from all the territories. The object of the discussions was to reach an agreement which would end the occupation. But this doen’t mean that she must accept an unreasonalbe agreement just to end the occupation.
Up to the present day, no country has recognized unilateral Israeli decisions to impose its law and administrative authority on lands annexed to West Jerusalem, as well as the territories of the Golan Heights.