TEL AVIV: Following the recent passing of the Referendum Law in the Knesset, Harvard professor Stephen Walt declared that Israelis and Palestinians can “kiss the two-state solution good-bye.” Israeli journalist Dimi Reider concurred, referring to “[the day] Israel finally killed the two-state solution,” and Haim Oron, the leader of the left-wing Mertez party, despaired that it will torpedo all attempts at negotiations. Given these hyperbolic responses, one would be forgiven for thinking that a greater crime had been committed than simply adding a requirement that Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories be endorsed by a majority of the Israeli public. Messrs Walt, Reider, and Oron are cynical about the chances of receiving this support. “This law in effect gives a veto to the hard-line settler faction,” wrote Walt. In other words, because he believes that a majority of Israelis do not support the land-for-peace principle, Walt is advocating that Israelis should be made to withdraw against their will. However, such action would, in effect, entail signing a peace treaty without first creating the will for peace. For withdrawal to work, it has to receive the support of the public. Nor can there be Israeli withdrawal without peace, especially given the fact that previous Israeli attempts at unilateral withdrawal, including the proposed withdrawal from the South Lebanese village of Ghajar, have been greeted with disapproval. It's true that referenda have been used as a cynical device for embellishing the rule of some of history's most unsavory leaders, including the likes of Napoleon and Hitler. However, in broadly democratic societies, when used sparingly, referenda can be effective tools. Britain, for example, has used referenda on important issues such as membership of the European Union and the referendum in Northern Ireland for the Belfast Agreement (a simultaneous referendum was held in the Republic of Ireland). It seems that the objections to use of a referendum for the Israeli public, then, primarily stem from the perceived low chances of its success (particularly vis-à-vis East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights). This may be true at the moment, but there is no reason why public opinion couldn't change. Those who oppose the Referendum Law may simply not be interested in doing the difficult but important work of convincing the Israeli public of the benefits of a peace deal. Instead, they argue that Israeli public opinion is irrelevant and that Israel is required to withdraw, whether or not the Israeli public believes that a withdrawal is in its best interests. I fully support a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. I also have sympathy for the argument that a commitment to the rights of the Palestinians— who currently live under Israeli rule without having any say in the matter— should supersede the right of Israelis to decide whether or not they want to remain in control of places like East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. But a peace treaty simply won't work without the agreement of the Israeli public. Take the example of Oslo, and its divisive role in Israeli society right up to the present day. It would have had a much greater chance of success had it won public support in a referendum. It is possible to win the battle of hearts and minds on the issue of land-for-peace, and the defeatism in the face of the Referendum Bill is totally misplaced. Yes, the Bill is undemocratic in that it doesn't apply to the millions of Palestinians (and Syrian Druze) living in the occupied territories. But the Palestinian public will also have to sign off on any peace agreement. It is true that democracy does not have to be majority rule. But– as the British example shows– there are clearly issues of sufficient import that they deserve to be put to the public. This is especially the case in Israel, where the proportional representation system means that people have very little say in the make-up of their government. How many Labor voters, for example, thought they would be propping up a right-wing government that includes Yisrael Beitenu? Those on the Left who are opposed to the referendum bill would do far better to focus their efforts on winning their case with the Israeli public, rather than relying on outside pressure and threats of a pariah future. It is the only way to peace. ### * Alex Stein lives in Tel Aviv and is an activist in Combatants for Peace. He can be contacted at [email protected]. This article was written for the Common Ground News Service (CGNews). Common Ground News Service (CGNews), 09 December 2010, www.commongroundsnews.org BM
