Its about time somebody brought these points up:

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?

Those who call the evacuation of settlers “ethnic cleanisng” while comparing it to ethnic cleansing of Arabs, must not support a referendum – as much as any other person who believes that act X is an ethnic cleansing would never ask for a referendum. The unauthenticity of these remarks is all too obvious.

[…] 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

This point is so obvious I can’t believe no one brought it up earlier on. It is not only relevant to an hypothetical referedum but to the disengagement plan and the non-existent peace process as a whole.

The referendum is usually brought up by settlers as an act that must take place against the ‘undemocratic’ decision made by Sharon. I do not completely accept Laor’s analysis as brought in his article quoted above. I believe that the idea of a referendum stems from the false belief that most Israelis support the settlements projects. Apart from the fact that, as Laor pointed out, what Israelis think is not the only democratic factor to be considered, I would like to argue that the vast majority of Israelis do not support the settlement projects and that the settlers bringing up the referendum as a propaganda tool are not only lacking democratic understanding, but are also wrong about Israeli support of their cause.

The two major arguments in favor of the continuation of the settlement projects are religious and military. The religious argument claims that the west bank and the gaza strip are integral parts of the greater Israel that cannot be given up. I think it is generally fair to claim that while this argument is what drives the settler movement itself, it certainly doesn’t drive most Israelis to support the occupation. The second argument, on the other hand is that the settlements projects are necessary for Israel’s security necessities. This argument can actually be divided to two separate ones.

The first “security” argument is that Israel is only eight miles wide at its narrowest point from the ocean to the 1949 border (insert reference to 1973 war here). The west bank expanded Israel’s borders, thus making it a more secure place.

The second argument does not conceive the settlements as ends-in-themselves, needed for the security of Israel, but shifts the argument to the fact that the Palestinian threat needs to be supressed in the territories in order for it to never reach Tel-Aviv. Considering the fact that such a Palestinian threat between 1967 and 1987 was not serious, the circularity and self-fulfilling prophecy of this claim is tragic.

Since the first and especially the second Intifada, the second “security” argument is much more common than the first one. Most Israelis definitely do not see the settlement project as a religious duty that cannot be given up, nor do they see it as a security-end. In fact, the IDF itself proved the fact that the settlements constitute a military burden, by building the separation fence in such an ackward way, with both Palestinians and Israels on both of its sides.

Most Israelis believe that if the occupation of the territories must continue, it is not because of the settlers, but despite of them. Sharon was elected by the majority of voters (not even close to the majority of potential voters) because Israelis believed that terror must be uprooted in the territories so they can live in ‘peace’. The settlers have translated this into the belief that they have wide support among Israelis, but that is a false belief. Like some of the right wing commentators I agree that Israel holds some kind of anti-religious ethos. This does not add much popularity to the fundamentalist settlers.

Thus, the idea that the settlers have major support in Israel is a false one, and pointing to the last elections or the growth of the right wing in the last few years does not prove a thing. In fact, I believe that the growth of the right wing is as deceiving as the growth of the left was in the 90’s. I hope time will prove me right.