Aluf Benn / Netanyahu tying his own hands with Golan bill
The bill creates an onerous ratification process for any deal that involves Israeli land concession.
By Aluf Benn Tags: Benjamin Netanyahu Israel news Middle East peaceThe "Referendum Law" that the Knesset voted to advance Wednesday would restrict the government's freedom of action in negotiations with the Palestinians, Syria and even Lebanon by making it harder to cede East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights or even Shaba Farms, whether unilaterally or by agreement.
The bill creates an onerous ratification procedure for any agreement that involves ceding sovereign Israeli territory: approval by the cabinet, by an absolute majority of 61 MKs and finally by a referendum in which voters would be asked whether they are for or against the agreement. The referendum itself would be decided by a simple majority. Only if the Knesset approved an agreement by a majority of 80 MKs - as it did the treaty with Jordan, for instance - would the referendum requirement be waived.
The bill would also eliminate the "constitutional lacuna" that currently enables unilateral withdrawals from sovereign Israeli territory. Currently, a simple majority of the Knesset could reverse the annexation of all or part of the Golan, and a 61-MK majority would be enough to alter Jerusalem's municipal boundaries. But the bill would require a referendum on any cession of territory to which Israeli law has been applied, even a unilateral one.
Thus Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who once again called Wednesday for renewed talks with the Palestinians, is binding himself with constitutional chains. In Netanyahu's view, it is important that diplomatic agreements be supported by a majority of the public, and not just the coalition's majority in the Knesset. But he is also signaling the Syrians, the Palestinians and the international community that he will have trouble passing any significant concessions - and trying to strengthen his hand in the negotiations. In addition, he is thereby pressing his negotiating partners to close a deal quickly, before the bill becomes law.
The Knesset voted to advance this bill a day after the European Union declared that Jerusalem must be the capital of two states. This is the first time a major international player has asserted that part of Jerusalem must be the Palestinian capital.
The bill would cover any territory to which Israeli law has been applied - namely, East Jerusalem and the Golan. The latter also includes Shaba Farms, which Lebanon is demanding. Thus, it would even impede a withdrawal from outlying Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem on the wrong side of the separation fence, where Israeli sovereignty is in practice rarely exercised.
However, it would not impede withdrawals from the West Bank or the village of Ghajar on the Lebanese border, as these are not under Israeli sovereignty.
The idea of a referendum on the Golan was first raised by Yitzhak Rabin in 1994, and was meant to free him from his preelection promise not to cede the Golan. Five years later, Ehud Barak promised that any agreement with the Syrians or Palestinians would be subject to a referendum. So far, however, no agreement with either has been reached, so the idea has never been put to the test.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Not to worry. When the government wants to do something it will not let the will of the people stop it. Take the freeze, for example. Netanyahu wanted to do something, and he issued an order. There was no Knesset vote even. And the Supreme Court rubber stamped this gross encrocachment on the poweres of the local authroities as if there was no law in existence. Netanyahu just had a couple of his cronies give him a nod. So don't for a minute think this referendum will have any binding effect. When Netanyahu wants to kick out Jews from their homes and give them to Moslems, he will tample the laws just like his predecessor Sharon did.
"Seems like a just law .." It's just an illegal law, made in illegally annexed territories "To be truly just the referendum must consider the entire Jewish diaspora as the land is theirs not just Israelis." It's just not Israeli. "No Jew has the right to give up land to be owned by our future children and grand children and their children and their grandchildren" No Jew has the right to ignore International Law, illegally acquire and illegal annex the Sovereign territory of another state.
To be truly just the referendum must consider the entire Jewish diaspora as the land is theirs not just Israelis. No Jew has the right to give up land to be owned by our future children and grand children and their children and their grandchildren .
Why would anyone rush to negotiate with Israel just because the Knesset adopted another law? The rest of the world already ignores the existing laws that say the territories are subject to Israel's sovereign jurisdiction.
It's time this legislation went forward! So called partners will have to really prove they want peace instead of conducting back door negotiations while blowing up the front doors. Anyway - temporary politicians shouldn't be given such power over our future, while only paying lip service to the democratic process.
Further evidence that we'll go to any length to prevent peace.
This Referendum Bill does not appear to be a Basic Law. Therefore, while this bill requires that there be a referendum or a two-third Knesset majority, the bill **itself** can be annulled by the simple act of, ahem, enacting a new bill that replaces it. So this entire exercise is nothing but a political pantomime. Which begs the question: is Bibi the Punch? Or the Judy? "Benjamin Netanyahu, who once again called Wednesday for renewed talks with the Palestinians, is binding himself with constitutional chains." Aluf, there is rather a requirement for a "consititution" before there can be any "constitutional chains".
The key is that magic word "sovereignty". The Golan Heights Law makes no mention whatsoever of Israeli "annexing" the Golan, or claiming "sovereignty" over it. The Golan Heights Law does something else entirely: it replaced the existing IDF MILITARY law with Israeli CIVILIAN law. Big whoopie: that is a matter of "jurisdiction", not "sovereignty". If a future Israeli PM wanted to get around this new Knesset bill (not Bibi, obviously) then he/she need simply ask the Israel High Court of Justice to rule on wether the Golan Heights Law 1980 actually extended Israeli "sovereignty" to the Golan. The answer from the court will be: nope.