There should be, in return, a US referendum on US aid for Israel. Shameful.

From Commentary Magazine's "Contentions" Weblog
November 24, 2010

The Public Be Damned

Jonathan noted yesterday that foreign critics are outraged by Israel’s passage of a law this week mandating referenda on certain types of territorial concessions. But their outrage doesn’t hold a candle to that of Israel’s own left.

In today’s editorial, for instance, Haaretz complained bitterly that “the public is being given veto power over crucial decisions on foreign policy and security issues.” By “handcuffing the political leadership’s moves in the peace process,” it charged, Israel is spitting in the world’s face.

Labor Party chairman and Defense Minister Ehud Barak similarly complained that “this is not a good law,” because the world will think “Israel is rejecting peace and is handcuffing itself to avoid progress in the diplomatic process.”

These arguments are mind-boggling. First, why should anyone in the democratic world object to giving the public a say in “crucial decisions on foreign policy and security”? Haaretz’s editors would evidently prefer a dictatorship of Plato’s philosopher-king, with themselves on the throne. But democracies are supposed to give the public a say in crucial decisions.

That’s why Britain, for instance, held a referendum on joining the European Economic Community, while France held one on leaving Algeria. In the U.S., this goal is achieved by requiring treaties to be ratified by a two-thirds Senate majority, which is unachievable without significant bipartisan consensus.

But the even more shocking assumption behind these plaints is that, given a choice, the public would reject any deal likely to be signed — yet the government should sign it anyway, and the public be damned.

Like Jonathan, I think Israelis would in fact support any reasonable agreement. But no reasonable agreement would ever be brought to a referendum, because the law requires a referendum only if an agreement doesn’t pass the Knesset by a two-thirds majority. And any reasonable agreement would easily surpass this threshold.

The history of Israeli diplomatic agreements amply proves this point. The treaties with both Egypt and Jordan did pass the Knesset by a two-thirds majority, and both, despite producing a colder peace than Israelis hoped, have stood the test of time. In contrast, not a single agreement with the Palestinians ever came close to achieving a two-thirds majority — and every single one has proved a bloody failure.

Nor is this mere coincidence. The Jordanian and Egyptian treaties won sweeping majorities because both countries’ leaders had proved their commitment to peace: Anwar Sadat by his dramatic visit to the Knesset, in defiance of the pan-Arab boycott on Israel, and Jordan’s King Hussein by decades of quiet security cooperation. And both treaties succeeded because these leaders truly wanted peace.

The Palestinian agreements won only narrow majorities because many Israelis weren’t convinced that the Palestinians wanted peace. And these agreements failed because this skepticism proved well-founded.

Thus the referendum law won’t prevent any deal actually worth signing. Nor will it prevent another bad deal on the West Bank, since it applies only to territory annexed by Israel. But it will at least prevent a bad deal over East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. And therefore, its passage is genuine cause for rejoicing.

--Posted By Evelyn Gordon, November 24, 2010 - 10:23 AM

Copyright © 1997-2009 Commentary Magazine
All Rights Reserved

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/evelyn-gordon/382427

The Israeli public has been supporting the two state solution if such can be achieved for a long time. 70% of the population supports giving land for peace. True peace.

I am afraid that is your problem, you guys want the land but not true peace.

Maybe now after leaving from Lebanon and the gaza strip the Israeli public is not going to run to the feet of terrorist leaders like arafat and his kind and say we have a true partner.

We Left Gaza got war, We left Lebanon got war. So you cant blame them for being a little suspicious about giving land for a maybe peace, Syria is supporting terror, the west bank is far from being a peaceful cleared of terrorists.

When arabs decide they want peace come and talk to us until than all the human rights peace seeking commentators that seem to care so much about the rights of people in the middle east, can focus on all the unjust racist laws that are passed in all the arab , muslim countries around Israel.
Mr walt can do the same, The non arabic speaking middle eastern expert is only an expert on bashing Israel . Women's rights and minority rights are far less important than this racist law, now because of this racist law we cant talk about gender apartheid which muslim states practice including gaza, the horrible treatment of any minorities, look at Lebanon's rules toward palestinians. The hypocrisy and hate is ridiculous.

PLEASE NOTE THIS DOCUMENT: A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties ~ By Oded Yinon, Published by The World Zionist Organization, Jerusalem - February, 1982
The plan operates on two essential premises. To survive, Israel must 1) become an imperial regional power, and 2) must effect the division of the whole area into small states by the dissolution of all existing Arab states. Small here will depend on the ethnic or sectarian composition of each state. Consequently, the Zionist hope is that sectarian-based states become Israel’s satellites and, ironically, its source of moral legitimation.
ENTIRE DOCUMENT – http://radioislam.org/islam/english/toread/kivunim.htm

EXCERPT FROM THE OBSERVER GUARDIAN, 09/21/2003:

…Without a ‘just, comprehensive and lasting’ peace which only America can bring to pass, Israel will remain at least as likely a candidate as Iran, and a far more enduring one, for the role of ‘nuclear-crazy’ state.
Iran can never be threatened in its very existence. Israel can. Indeed, such a threat could even grow out of the current intifada. That, at least, is the pessimistic opinion of Martin van Creveld, professor of military history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. ‘If it went on much longer,’ he said, ‘the Israeli government [would] lose control of the people…
…In this situation, he went on, more and more Israelis were coming to regard the ‘transfer’ of the Palestinians as the only salvation; resort to it was growing ‘more probable’ with each passing day. Sharon ‘wants to escalate the conflict and knows that nothing else will succeed’.
But would the world permit such ethnic cleansing? ‘That depends on who does it and how quickly it happens. We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force. Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: “Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.” I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.’

SOURCE – http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/21/israelandthepalestinians.bookextracts

"The Israeli public has been supporting the two state solution if such can be achieved for a long time."'

The majority also suport the settlements, which makes a 2 state solution impossible.

Israel don't want peace. They want security, but are not prepared to pay the price for peace. As soon as Obama gave his Cairo speech, a speech that asked very little of Israel in the name of peace, his approval ratings in Israel plummetted to single digits and he was regarded as anti Israel.

Israelis can get away with claiing they want peace and a 2 state solution, because until now, they have never had to face the prospect of real peace. The last time they did, the Prime Minister got killed.

That's becasue Israle has always favored land over peace.

Israel's idea of leaving territory is also farcical. To this day, parts of Lebanon reamined ifested with land mines. When Israel "withdrew from Gaza" it fired 8000 shells into Gaza in less than 12 months after it's withdrawl, and then when they got a response, the usual suspects claim that all they got for their trouble was war.

As the Winograd Commission concluded, Israel attacked Lebanon in 2006.

The Arabs (all 22 states) have signed a peace initiative, offering to not only recognize Israel but normalize relations. All they have asked is for Isrle to return to the 1967 borders (ie. enact the 2 state solution they apprently support), but ISrael has rejected the offer every since it was made in 2003.

implement this wonderful new political rights campaign with the 22 Arab states in the region.

Israel claims to be more democratic than the Arab states. So how about proving it by becoming an actual democracy with a one person-one vote system?

Apparently Jacob has been abandoned to fend for himself from his hasbarast comrades. Still fighting the good fight Jacob?

Jacob, your argument of "they are worse than us" is so lame. As Nicolas noted Israel CLAIMS to be a democracy yet behaves in extremely UNdemocratic ways. There are 2 main reasons that the amazingly gullible lemmings known as the US population support Israel:

1) They are fundamentalist Christians and are hoping for the end-times (if i were a Jew I would not really want the support of a group of people who believe that I will need to change my religion or I will go to hell...but whatever...)

2) The canard of "Israel and the US share the same values" has previously found traction by the ignorant here in the US. If that is the case than let Israel put up or shut up. If you want to "share values" with the US, then saying "I will act like all of those other 22 countries whose values you Americans disagree with because they do it" is an inconsistent position to take. Either democracy is your value - in which case you exercise it regardless of your neighbors behavior - or it is not.

It is my personal belief that you cannot be both a democracy and theocracy (i.e. - a Jewish or Muslim or Christian nation). They appear mutually exclusive to me. This is why the framers of the US Constitution (most democracies have a constitution...nobody has ever seen an Israeli constitution because it doesn't exist, correct?) insisted in a separation of church and state.

Where else do parties like Balad exist? Where else to ethnic minorities hold judical positions, including on the high court? Where else to minority ethnic NGO's congregate without fear of torture and dissapearance? Where else is there a free press?
.
Hate to burst your bubble, but Israel is a democratic society.

, but calling me names just shows how weak your arguments are, Base.

And no, my argument is not ‘there are states worse than Israel. My argument is that in 22 Arab run states, there is not a single one where there is a ‘one person, one vote’, unless you are working with the idea of there is only ONE person with the vote, i.e. the “ruler”, whether he be king, sheik, emir, colonel, or el Presidente for life.
.
What makes your argument about ‘one man - one vote’ argument so amusing is that this demand is made ONLY for Israel, which already has a one-person, one vote, rule for all inside its borders, including minorities, who sit in the Knesset, who sit on Israel’s Supreme Court, who have served in its executive branch cabinet, who do serve in its military, who do vote, who do have access to a free press, etc.
.
Actually, the reason the people in the US support Israel is that it is a liberal western-oriented democratic state, and is not some tin-pot dictatorship where they stone people to death, or convict people for sorcery and call for their heads to be lopped off.
.
Of course to the ‘hate Israel’ crowd, there has to be some mysterious, mystical, or more likely sinister rationale for supporting Israel. They need to come up with excuses like media manipulation, “Hasbara”. or nefarious “lobbying”. They just cannot bear the reality that Israel is more like the West than its Arab neighbors, and hence enjoys a closer relationship than the neighboring Arab states.

Same thing with the “Israel is a theocracy in democracy’s clothing. It doesn’t hold water, especially when one looks at Western Europe, with The UK holding on to a national religion, German political parties including “Christian Democrats”, France banning the burqa and Switzerland banning minarets. The idea that a ‘Constitution’ is the base requirement of liberal democracy is equally foolish and an equally empty and vapid argument. Israel has national laws, and checks and balances, and most importantly, the freedom to debate, discuss, and reject, political arguments, parties, and a means for redressing issues in an independent judiciary. This is especially poignant, given that our own US Constitution originally forbid women the vote, counted African Americans as only 3/5 of a person, and accepted slavery in a large chunk of the Union for almost 100 years after our “independence”.

your favorite country, the country with the 2nd highest population of Jews in the middle east, behind Israel. They are represented in parliament.

Jacob -

Lets go down the list....

1. "Sticks and stones may break my bones..., but calling me names just shows how weak your arguments are, Base." --- So I didnt realize that I called you a name other than Hasbarist. Is that a derogatory term?

2. "And no, my argument is not ‘there are states worse than Israel. My argument is that in 22 Arab run states, there is not a single one where there is a ‘one person, one vote’, unless you are working with the idea of there is only ONE person with the vote, i.e. the “ruler”, whether he be king, sheik, emir, colonel, or el Presidente for life." --- So lets take Jordan as an example. Jordan is a kingdom. They do not walk around screaming that they are a democracy while actually not being a democracy. The states that seem to do to this in the middle east (besides Israel of course) are actually supported by the US (Egypt comes to mind and is an ally (or at least cooperative with) Israel.

3. "Israel, which already has a one-person, one vote, rule for all inside its borders, including minorities, who sit in the Knesset, who sit on Israel’s Supreme Court, who have served in its executive branch cabinet, who do serve in its military, who do vote, who do have access to a free press, etc." --- I notice how you omit the millions of Palestinians living under occupation by Israel as well as the millions of refugees that will likely never be allowed to return to their home in pre-67 israel.

4. "Actually, the reason the people in the US support Israel is that it is a liberal western-oriented democratic state" -- I think that was the point of my post. Israel is not a liberal democratic state in as much as it totally impinges on the rights of minority groups, and is in violation of a myriad of international laws.

5. "They need to come up with excuses like media manipulation, “Hasbara”. or nefarious “lobbying”." --- So you are saying that a Hasbara movement doesn't exist? Or that there is not extreme lobbying efforts on behalf of Israel?

6. "They just cannot bear the reality that Israel is more like the West than its Arab neighbors, and hence enjoys a closer relationship than the neighboring Arab states." --- I do not recall anyone saying this (except you...)

7. "Same thing with the “Israel is a theocracy in democracy’s clothing. It doesn’t hold water, especially when one looks at Western Europe, with The UK holding on to a national religion, German political parties including “Christian Democrats”, France banning the burqa and Switzerland banning minarets. " --- I do not personally believe that it is the same thing. However, I do not green light Switzerland (a country in which I recently lived) or France with their growing intolerance. Their views are troubling and they are flirting with danger with these policies. Institutionalizing acceptable religion in a state is reprehensible to me - regardless of the religion - and giving one group of citizens rights that others do not have based on their religious beliefs is odious. This practice exists in Israel every day despite your assertions that they do not. This makes Israel on par with many of the other states that you happily deride on this site day after day. I consistently apply these standards - you clearly do not.

Ah yes, Iran (I hear its lovely to visit this time of year). A country where Jews are appointed a single seat in its Parliament. Of course running for the presidency is actually out of the question because they can’t get passed the “entrance exam”, by virtue of not being Muslim and all that.

You want to try again AEL?

. Hasbarist: It is a derogatory term when someone like you is using it in a pejorative manner. It also is false, with your belief that anyone who has a pro-Israeli viewpoint has to be under the employ of the Israeli government.
.
2. Right let’s take Jordan. It is a divine right monarchy. Nothing wrong with that, if you like being a serf. But it’s also not consistent with American values, given that we took up cause against King George, you know, taxation without representation, Boston Tea Party and all that. It’s also a kingdom which seems to have that lovely cultural norm of honor killings, and has on its books the death penalty for selling land to Jews. Egypt too, while a nominal ally, treats its citizens as royal subjects of the Pharaoh, I’m sorry, the President, Hosni Mubarak, who seeks to install his son as part of a dynastic transition of power and is abusing its Coptic Christian minority. These are things that Americans just don’t seem to consider as culturally binding.
.
3. No I didn’t forget about the Palestinians. They do not live under Israeli rule as they are not citizens of Israel. They live in the West Bank, which Israel considers disputed territory, and has been trying to come to a peaceful resolution with them, and the neighboring Arab states for over 40 years since they became the controlling entity in that territory. You know, UN242 and UN338 and all that. The idea that Israel is at fault for not getting the Arabs to come to a peaceful resolution to the Arab Israeli conflict for several decades is not cause to blame Israel for not letting the Palestinians become Israeli citizens. Closer to reality is, it’s a cop-out by you. As for the refugees, well, they should have been resettled, just like refugees have been resettled from all the conflicts previously. Indeed, one can take a look at the flip side of the conflict, where the Arab states threw the Jews out, and confiscated their property. Or, you could look at WWII, where Jews returning from the concentration camps were told to take a hike, often violently. Moreover, the idea that Palestinians, who are demanding a Palestinian state, wouldn’t want to go to Palestine. The idea of demanding an independent state only so that your people could go elsewhere is disingenuous at the least.
.
4. Actually, my point refuted your baseless claim, and I continue to do so. Your argument for international law is meaningless when it comes to democracies, and also holds little water given the use of lawfare by the Arab states. As for impinging on the rights of minority groups, even if true, is no worse then how minorities are treated in Western Europe and the US.
.
5. No, there is no “extreme Lobbying” on behalf of Israel. What is now participation in the political process considered to be an X-Games sport? I’m not sure which branch of Judaism the Hasbara branch is connected to. But people like you use it as a straw man argument to refute any alternative opinion.
.
6. As opposed to your amen chorus? Really, something like 63% of Americans support Israel.
.
7.Ah, so you have a problem with religion. Good, you’re entitled to it. The reality is, Israel is the homeland of the Jews, a distinct people, a tribe if you will. I’m not sure what you mean by institutionalizing acceptable religions? Do you mean that non-Jews are forced to convert to Judaism? Do you mean that non-Jews must abide by ritual Halacha? Or are you upset that Israel wants to try to close the malls on Shabbes? Or is it the fact that you don’t like the Orthodox seperating Jewish men from women at the Temple Mount during prayers?
.
You claim that Israel’s status makes it ‘undemocratic’ and unlike the western democracies. Of course, by your own words, you show rather the opposite.

thanks Jacob, I'll keep your comment in mind the next time a Muslim runs for president in Israel

But while ISrael is still largely secualr and progressive, it is not a democracy.

A democracy is defined as meeting the following criteria.

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

Israel fails to meet 3, 4 and 5.

Hence, Israel is not a democracy.

"thanks Jacob, I'll keep your comment in mind the next time a Muslim runs for president in Israel"

Yes, let's imagine a Muslim Prime Minister in a state that demands it be recognized as a Jewish state.

Let's leave that to Jacob to explain to us.

Perhaps "more"?
.
Let us know when you get off the hate-mongering freight train and plan on joining the rest of humanity in the real world.
.
Of course, the idea that Jews should have an independent state is an anathma to someone like yourself. Who knows, give those Jews a state of their own and who knows where that might lead.
.
"GASP" They might even get the idea in their heads that they're human too, and deserve the same 'human rights' as any other non Dhimmi.
.
That the British came up with the idea to support a Jewish homeland in Israel decades before WWII shows how bankrupt towards Israel your philosophy really is.

Everyone who 'stands up for Israel" decries the state as a "Royal Pain in the Ass", and complains about "Jew Land".
.
.
Of course to someone like you, Jews must have popped out from secretly placed mushrooms before we wound up all over the world.
.
Is Jerusalem really that important? The answer in short, is yes.

for a lot of people not just for members of the tribe

And when you sing it...you sing it for the Queen of England. You sing it for the Emperor of Mexico, and for the Zionist State of Canada...they all need to know, they all need to be made aware...we sing a new national anthem...

Aren't you glad to be an American? WEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeee're all fuckin' crazy!

Science and rational thought are all well and good, but without compassion they are a dead end road. Otherwise I am on board 100% with your post, Hurricanewarning. Arbitrary gods, arbitrary ideals and aleatoric laws destroy billions of lives.

But religious and idealistic indoctrination are cancers.

Look up the capital of Israel. It has never been Jerusalem.

You're clearly back to posting paragraphs of hot air, wrapped around incoherent and vague blather.

Rather than insist others make a better argument, why dodn't you stat by contributing better comments?