FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Referendums, Palestinians and the Settlements

The self-satisfaction of the doves, as if they were righteous and thus their work were being done by Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, allows the settlers’ demand for a referendum to spread as a malignant affliction, gaining legitimacy. Employing the tactic of repeating a lie, Yesha Council officials are reiterating the same dubious “truth” according to which “the evacuation of Jews from their homes” is immoral, but if the nation decides in a referendum then everything would be fine.

This position, with its peculiar contradictions, is heard non-stop in the media. It raises a sad question about the moral outlook of the Yesha Council [Council of Jewish Settlements of of Judea, Samaria and Gaza District] officials. Would a referendum make the withdrawal more ethical? More worthy of obedience? The integrity of the Yesha Council officials also comes into question. If these matters indeed reach the extent of Holocaust images, concentration camps, Star of David patches, what does the magical solution of a referendum have to do with all that?

And if a referendum decides in favor of “a transfer of Jews,” should the Israelis who participate in this–regarded by Yesha officials as Nazis sending Jews with yellow badges to death transports–be worthy of an attitude different from the one the train guards deserve?

If the cries of “Auschwitz” can be set aside, for reasons of good taste, the playing of the chord of democracy must not be accepted with forbearance because it constitutes part of the winning tactics of Yesha Council officials. If the opposition or the left wing of the coalition had a bit more courage, its members should have said several explicit things that Sharon cannot say, because he does not think them.

The settlers believe that there is no sovereign that can give up “parts of the Land of Israel,” which God promised to the people of Israel. The State of Israel, according to this anti-democratic outlook (which makes wide use of the rhetoric of democracy), cannot represent the people living in Israel. Words to this effect were already written in the declaration establishing the Greater Israel movement immediately after the conquest of the territories, a manifesto that rejected the legitimacy of any government that might try to return the territories.

Moreover, a referendum on the future of the occupied territories that is not held among the Palestinians–the only legal residents of the territories–not only makes a mockery of democracy, and not only from the perspective of international law, but also from the perspective of Israeli law. A referendum of Jews on the future of the Palestinian territories grants a legal seal of approval to the existing de facto state of apartheid in the territories. Why are the settlers so eager to conduct a referendum that they would clearly lose? Because this type of referendum, which requires a legislative process, would give legal validity to apartheid.

These things must be said to counter the settlers’ propaganda campaign, but the response must not be confined to a legalistic framework. The silence about the demand for a referendum or the formal answers (about the supremacy of decisions by the Knesset and government) contributes toward reinforcing the Israeli ethnocracy, a polite name for the Jewish collective, “clean of Palestinians.” The way the argument is currently being sounded, the arrangement does not affect the residents of the territories at all. According to this argument, their ancestral home has already belonged to the Jewish people for a long time, whether or not the Jewish people decides to give it up.

From the perspective of raising a new generation of masters–masters of the land, the settlers’ victory has already been achieved under the auspices of the rear guard battle over disengagement if they are not told the truth: Democracy exists so that human beings and nations can decide their fate and future. It cannot be divided–“only for Jews.”

Anyone familiar with the political discourse in Israel realizes that the moment a referendum process begins, the demand will be raised to deny Arab citizens of Israel the right to vote in it. Masters Avigdor Lieberman, Yuri Stern and other democrats have expressed their opinions on the ethnic cleansing of the State of Israel. An argument over the referendum, which does not utterly reject this type of poll, subscribes to the logic of Lieberman.

Strange is the silence of those who believe their role is currently limited to group photographs with Sharon.

YITZHAK LAOR is an Israeli novelist who lives in Tel Aviv.

 

More articles by:
April 19, 2018
Ramzy Baroud
Media Cover-up: Shielding Israel is a Matter of Policy
Vijay Prashad
Undermining Brazilian Democracy: the Curious Saga of Lula
Steve Fraser
Class Dismissed: Class Conflict in Red State America
John W. Whitehead
Crimes of a Monster: Your Tax Dollars at Work
Kenn Orphan
Whistling Past the Graveyard
Karl Grossman - TJ Coles
Opening Pandora’s Box: Karl Grossman on Trump and the Weaponization of Space
Colin Todhunter
Behind Theresa May’s ‘Humanitarian Hysterics’: The Ideology of Empire and Conquest
Jesse Jackson
Syrian Strikes is One More step Toward a Lawless Presidency
Michael Welton
Confronting Militarism is Early Twentieth Century Canada: the Woman’s International League for Peace and Freedom
Alycee Lane
On David S. Buckel and Setting Ourselves on Fire
Jennifer Matsui
Our Overlords Reveal Their Top ‘To Do’s: Are YOU Next On Their Kill List?
George Ochenski
Jive Talkin’: On the Campaign Trail With Montana Republicans
Kary Love
Is It Time for A Nice, “Little” Nuclear War?
April 18, 2018
Alan Nasser
Could Student Loans Lead to Debt Prison? The Handwriting on the Wall
Susan Roberts
Uses for the Poor
Alvaro Huerta
I Am Not Your “Wetback”
Jonah Raskin
Napa County, California: the Clash of Oligarchy & Democracy
Robert Hunziker
America’s Dystopian Future
Geoffrey McDonald
“America First!” as Economic War
Jonathan Cook
Robert Fisk’s Douma Report Rips Away Excuses for Air Strike on Syria
Jeff Berg
WW III This Ain’t
Binoy Kampmark
Macron’s Syria Game
Linn Washington Jr.
Philadelphia’s Top Cop Defends Indefensible Prejudice in Starbucks Arrest Incident
Katie Fite
Chaos in Urban Canyons – Air Force Efforts to Carve a Civilian Population War Game Range across Southern Idaho
Robby Sherwin
Facebook: This Is Where I Leave You
April 17, 2018
Paul Street
Eight Takeaways on Boss Tweet’s Latest Syrian Missile Spasm
Robert Fisk
The Search for the Truth in Douma
Eric Mann
The Historic 1968 Struggle Against Columbia University
Roy Eidelson
The 1%’s Mind Games: Psychology Gone Bad
John Steppling
The Sleep of Civilization
Patrick Cockburn
Syria Bombing Reveals Weakness of Theresa May
Dave Lindorff
No Indication in the US That the Country is at War Again
W. T. Whitney
Colombia and Cuba:  a Tale of Two Countries
Dean Baker
Why Isn’t the Median Wage for Black Workers Rising?
Linn Washington Jr.
Philadelphia’s Top Cop Defends Indefensible Prejudice in Starbucks Arrest Incident
C. L. Cook
Man in the Glass
Kary Love
“The Mob Boss Orders a Hit and a Pardon”
Lawrence Wittner
Which Nations Are the Happiest―and Why
Dr. Hakim
Where on Earth is the Just Economy that Works for All, Including Afghan Children?
April 16, 2018
Dave Lindorff
President Trump’s War Crime is Worse than the One He Accuses Assad of
Ron Jacobs
War is Just F**kin’ Wrong
John Laforge
Nuclear Keeps on Polluting, Long After Shutdown
Norman Solomon
Missile Attack on Syria Is a Salute to “Russiagate” Enthusiasts, Whether They Like It or Not
Uri Avnery
Eyeless in Gaza   
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Iraq Then, Syria Now
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail