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.

[Item below - 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

====

Excuse me, your bias is showing...
http://peacenow.org/entries/excuse_me_your_bias
By Noam Shelef on November 6, 2009 11:09 AM | No Comments

I subscribe to Aaron Lerner's email list. It's a great way to get a sense of
what Israeli right-wingers are thinking and reading. His emails give the
impression of objectivity, but every so often his ideological bias glares
through.

My colleague Ori Nir wrote several months ago about the manipulative polling
that Lerner's group sponsors. Check that out here.

Another example can be found in one of his mass emails yesterday. There he
takes a quote from Yossi Beilin and suggests it inadvertently makes the case
that Israel should hold a referendum as part of the ratification of any
peace agreement.

The call for a referendum is often advocated by opponents of peace
agreements in Israel because it would offer them a third venue in which to
defeat a negotiated agreement. The first venue would be when an agreement is
approved by the Israeli cabinet. The second would be when it is approved by
the Knesset.

Here is the Beilin quote:

If you are in power with the responsibility for the future of the People
on your shoulders and if you are convinced that it is the correct path don't
hesitate. Don't knowingly make the wrong decision only because you found
yourself saying something in the heat of the election campaign. In any case
in the next elections you will face the judgment of the public...

Here is Lerner's comment:

The purpose of the democratic process is to enable the electorate to
impact policy.

Yossi Beilin's view of the democratic process is that politicians should
have no qualms getting elected on one platform and implementing another - so
long as they are willing to risk getting the boot.

Beilin unintentionally presents a powerful argument for the need for
national referendums to approve agreements involving territorial
concessions. That's the only way to insure that the public's will is
ultimately honored.

Political scientists will forever argue over the relative merits of
representative democracy over direct democracy, but I suspect that Lerner's
pitch for a referendum has less to do with the best way to "enable the
electorate to impact policy" and more to do with his opposition to Israeli
territorial withdrawal.

Am I wrong? I'd like to give Aaron Lerner the opportunity to demonstrate
intellectual honesty. Just as he wants every Israeli withdrawal to be
subject to a referendum, would he be willing to subject the approval of any
construction in settlements to a referendum?

Somehow I doubt it.