Whose Afraid Of Democracy?

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-abbas-poster.htmlThe Arab world and their apologists are, that's for sure.

The Israeli Knesset passed a law requiring a referendum before withdrawing from Israeli territory:

Because the law only applies to sovereign Israeli territory, no referendum would be needed to withdraw from any part of the West Bank. However, a referendum would be required for a pullout from East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights, as both have been annexed by Israel. It would also be required if, under a future deal with the Palestinians, Israel ceded land within the pre-1967 lines in exchange for keeping the settlement blocs.

The predictable response?


Abbas claimed:

This law is aimed at placing obstacles in front of a peace settlement

That would have been in Ramallah, where Abbas inaugurated the new headquarters for the PLO--and praised the leadership of the Grand Mufti al-Husseini, who was friendly with Hitler and encouraged the murder of Jews.

Then there is Stephen Walt--half of the Israel Lobby team. Walt wants Obama to force Israel to rescind the new law:

If Obama's Middle East team had any backbone -- and it's been clear for some time that they don't -- they would pull their demeaning offer to give Israel extra $3 billion in weapons and a bunch of diplomatic concessions in exchange for a partial 90-day settlement freeze off the table immediately, and keep it off until the Israeli government voted to rescind this law.

I suppose being a 'realist' means never having to respect another country's sovereignty--if it's Israel.

In response to both Abbas and Walt, Jonathan Tobin writes about the advantage of Israel having a referendum on whatever is negotiated:

Any Israeli government that chose to sign an agreement that called for the re-division of Jerusalem or handing the strategic Golan back to Syria would be strengthened by the knowledge that their decisions would have to be ratified by the people. They would be free to be more, not less, generous with a Palestinian partner who genuinely wanted peace, simply because such a government would be, in a sense, operating with a net. Without a referendum, acceptance of an agreement would be merely a matter of enforcing party discipline in the governing coalition. That would leave any government — especially one led from the right, as is Israel’s current coalition — vulnerable to accusations of betraying their voters. A referendum would give any peace deal the seal of democratic approval that it must have to succeed.

Imagine that--Israelis need to have some kind of say in what happens to their country!

I don't see why Walt doesn't just come out and admit point blank that what's bothering him is that with a referendum, Obama cannot simply force Israel into whatever unilateral concessions he sees fit.

Maybe Walt wouldn't mind the new so much if he knew the history of popular Israeli sentiment. Yaacov Lozowick writes that Israelis have historically been supportive of making concessions for peace:

I don't think this is a particular dramatic development. Should there ever be a serious Syrian proposal to make real peace with Israel in return for the Golan, it will be greeted by a majority of Israelis, both in the Knesset and the general populace. Just as there was a near-total majority that supported retreating from the entire Sinai and disbanding settlements in return for peace with Egypt, and just like there was a clear majority for getting out of southern Lebanon and then Gaza in the past decade, even for less than peace.

The problem is that those who are critical are thinking along the lines of Walt, who bemoan the loss of pressure on Israel for concessions. After all, the only alternative now would be--dare I say it--negotiations.

And that means waiting for Abbas.

Technorati Tag: Mideast Peace Talks.