FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

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:

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

April 25, 2019
Marc Levy
All My Vexes Are in Texas
Jim Kavanagh
Avoiding Assange
Michael D. Yates
The Road Beckons
Julian Vigo
Notre Dame Shows the Unifying Force of Culture, Grenfell Reveals the Corruption of Government
Ted Rall
Democratic Refusal to Impeach Could Be Disastrous
Tracey Harris
Lessons Learned From the Tiny House Movement
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Human Flourishing (Eudaimonia): an Antidote to Extinction?
Dana Johnson
Buyer Beware: Hovercraft Ruling Deals a Major Blow to Land Conservation in Alaska
Norman Solomon
Joe Biden: Puffery vs. Reality
Jen Marlowe
The Palestine Marathon
Binoy Kampmark
Lethal Bungling: Sri Lanka’s Easter Bombings
Michael Slager
“Where’s Your Plan?” Legalized Bribery and Climate Change
Jesse Jackson
Trump Plunges the US Deeper Into Forgotten Wars
George Wuerthner
BLM Grazing Decision Will Damage the Owyhee Canyonlands Wilderness
April 24, 2019
Susan Babbitt
Disdain and Dignity: An Old (Anti-Imperialist) Story
Adam Jonas Horowitz
Letter to the Emperor
Lawrence Davidson
A Decisive Struggle For Our Future
John Steppling
The Mandate for Israel: Keep the Arabs Down
Victor Grossman
Many Feet
Cira Pascual Marquina
The Commune is the Supreme Expression of Participatory Democracy: a Conversation with Anacaona Marin of El Panal Commune
Binoy Kampmark
Failed States and Militias: General Khalifa Haftar Moves on Tripoli
Dean Baker
Payments to Hospitals Aren’t Going to Hospital Buildings
Alvaro Huerta
Top Ten List in Defense of MEChA
Colin Todhunter
As the 2019 Indian General Election Takes Place, Are the Nation’s Farmers Being Dealt a Knock-Out Blow?
Charlie Gers
Trump’s Transgender Troops Ban is un-American and Inhumane
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Just Another Spring in Progress?
Thomas Knapp
On Obstruction, the Mueller Report is Clintonesque
Elliot Sperber
Every Truck’s a Garbage Truck
April 23, 2019
Peter Bolton
The Monroe Doctrine is Back, and as the Latest US Attack on Cuba Shows, Its Purpose is to Serve the Neoliberal Order
David Schultz
The Mueller Report: Trump Too Inept to Obstruct Justice
Geoff Beckman
Crazy Uncle Joe and the Can’t We All Just Get Along Democrats
Medea Benjamin
Activists Protect DC Venezuelan Embassy from US-supported Coup
Patrick Cockburn
What Revolutionaries in the Middle East Have Learned Since the Arab Spring
Jim Goodman
Don’t Fall for the Hype of Free Trade Agreements
Lance Olsen
Climate and Forests: Land Managers Must Adapt, and Conservationists, Too
William Minter
The Coming Ebola Epidemic
Tony McKenna
Stephen King’s IT: a 2019 Retrospective
David Swanson
Pentagon Claims 1,100 High Schools Bar Recruiters; Peace Activists Offer $1,000 Award If Any Such School Can Be Found
Gary Olson
A Few Comments on the recent PBS Series: Reconstruction: America After the Civil War
April 22, 2019
Melvin Goodman
The NYTs Tries to Rehabilitate Bloody Gina Haspel
Robert Fisk
After ISIS, a Divided Iraq, Wounded and Grief-Stricken
Binoy Kampmark
Julian Assange as Neuroses
John Laforge
Chernobyl’s Deadly Effects Estimates Vary
Kenneth Surin
Mueller Time? Not for Now
Cesar Chelala
Yemen: The Triumph of Barbarism
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail