Sneaking peace

According to Ha’aretz a law that just past its first reading stipulates Territorial withdrawal only by referendum:

An existing law already mandates a referendum before ceding any territory under Israeli sovereignty, but it also states that this requirement will not apply until a Basic Law detailing the procedures for holding a referendum is passed. The current law eliminated the need to enact a Basic Law. Instead, it requires that territorial concessions be approved by a national referendum or general elections or a majority of 80 Knesset members.

Golan Lobby Chairman MK Yisrael Katz said that it was extremely important that the law was approved, in order to make it clear that attempts to hand over the Golan will be followed by the tedious procedure of a referendum. “There is an important message here, especially while negotiations are underway,” Katz said.

Opposition Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu said the “in Western countries, giving up land is impossibly difficult, and in tiny little Israel, governments can relinquish land with unbearable ease. This is something that must be rectified, and the law can do that.”

My guess is that if Netanyahu ever becomes Prime Minister again, he may regret supporting such a bill. Still the record since 1992 has been that governments promoting peace have ceded land to enemies with unfortunate results.

In 1995, the late PM Rabin didn’t have the votes in Knesset to win passage of Oslo II. So he enticed members of the opposition to join his coalition with ministerial positions in order to secure the necessary votes. In 2005 PM Sharon ignored the results of referendum in the LIkud and went ahead with the withdrawal from Gaza.

In the first case Yasser Arafat benefited and received more territory from which he proceeded to encourage terrorism against Israel. In the more recent case after Israel evacuated all Jews from Gaza, Hamas strengthened its hold there and has been free to launch rockets against Israel with near impunity.

I’m not arguing that the public is necessarily better equipped to make such decisions, though in these two cases the public’s skepticism was clearly justified.

This referendum law is a reaction to the way Israeli governments have handled peace negotiations until now. Whether it was PM Rabin’s machinations over Oslo II, PM Sharon’s ignoring his own party’s referendum or PM Barak negotiating with Arafat even after his government fell, there’s been a tendency of Israeli governments to “sneak” peace deals.

Given that any deal requires the relinquishing of territory to enemies, concessions are bound to be unpopular. But instead of trying to convince the electorate of the benefits of such deals or insisting that the enemy actually change and convince the Israeli public of new circumstances, the governments have taken an attitude that we know what’s best and we’ll get it done any way possible. They’ll achieve the peace deal with the enemy – who more often than not commits to taking the benefits but not the responsibilities inherent in the deal – but without the popular support of their constituents.

This law, if passed would change that. The Israeli public would have to be convinced that the price paid for peace would be worth it.

The behavior of Fatah and Hamas since they gained territory showed that the governments’ faith in them was misplaced. Now, if this law passes, future Israeli governments will have to gain the faith of the electorate before trusting Israel’s enemies.

Netanyahu has a point too. In the United States treaties require a super majority of Congress. And those treaties are usually with friendly nations. When dealing with hostile nations shouldn’t Israel require a similar mandate?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.