Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA 11 November 2009

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.

[PS: It turns out that Noam Shelef sent me a note via Twitter to alert me
to his comment. While I send material out via Twitter I don't check it
myself, hence the incorrect comment that he did not alert me to his
comment.]

===============
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.