Start A Petition

Benjamin Netanyahu Vows to Hold Referendum on Peace Deal

World  (tags: world, politics, middle-east, israel, news, diplomacy, Russia, government, ethics, news, politics )

- 1795 days ago -
Benjamin Netanyahu has vowed to stage the first referendum in Israel's 65-year history to give voters the final say on any peace agreement reached with the Palestinians.

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Sue Matheson (79)
Monday July 22, 2013, 4:21 am

Past Member (0)
Monday July 22, 2013, 6:01 am
Interesting, thanks.

pam w (139)
Monday July 22, 2013, 8:07 am
Let's hope it works..

. (0)
Monday July 22, 2013, 8:38 am
Interesting development-thanks

Past Member (0)
Monday July 22, 2013, 9:02 am
Good on him for asking the people what they think Most countries dont like referendums ours does nt Too frightened they will get the wrong answer

Robert K (31)
Monday July 22, 2013, 9:49 am
If Bibi is asking for input you can be certain the fix is already in.

fly b (26)
Monday July 22, 2013, 10:40 am
"Nut he has nothing on", said the little child.

"But he has nothing on!" at last cried all the people.
The Emperor writhed, for he knew it was true, but he thought to himself "the procession must go on," so held himself stiffer than ever, and the chamberlains held up the invisible train.

Andersen's Fairy Tale

Twyla Sparks (208)
Monday July 22, 2013, 1:55 pm

Birgit W (160)
Monday July 22, 2013, 2:29 pm

Bryna Pizzo (139)
Monday July 22, 2013, 2:49 pm
Thank you! I pray it works.

Lois Jordan (63)
Monday July 22, 2013, 2:52 pm
Noted. So, there's a lot of talk, but are definitely implying that nothing positive will come of it in the near future. As long as these same leaders remain in power in Israel, a two-state solution won't happen unfortunately. Lip service.

S J (130)
Monday July 22, 2013, 5:01 pm
Noted, thanks Cal. I do hope for peace, people have been suffering so very much.

Aletta Kraan (146)
Monday July 22, 2013, 6:43 pm
Thanks , noted .

Lily T. (8)
Monday July 22, 2013, 6:46 pm
"The prospect of an electoral veto could also help Mr Netanyahu keep his coalition intact after several members threatened to resign if peace talks were held under certain conditions that the Palestinians have demanded, such as a settlement freeze or on the basis of pre-1967 borders."

Under certain conditions? These "conditions" are actually the law. As for freezing the building of settlements, i would think that if Israel is serious, that would be a necessary condition. You cannot keep on taking land that is not legally yours. Israel signed onto these principles. To continue to build during times of negotiation are galling.

Stephen Brian (23)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 12:23 am
There will only be a referendum if a final agreement is reached. I seriously doubt that one will be, unless Palestinians of the West Bank are willing to make a separate peace with Israel, leaving out those of Gaza. Even with that, it looks unlikely. That's really the only thing I could see bringing Netanyahu to the table which would be kept hidden rather than publicized as much as possible.

. (0)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 7:55 am
Nutty Yahoo & peace is the perfect example of an oxymoron - far from being listened to and taken seriously this crazy evil creature should be strung up from the nearest tree and then burnt at the stake and what's left f him eaten by rabid dogs!

Tuesday July 23, 2013, 7:35 pm
JERUSALEM is non Negotiable...........................

Sheila D (194)
Tuesday July 23, 2013, 11:35 pm
Noted - I'll believe it when I see it.

Lily T. (8)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 4:08 am
East Jerusalem doesn't belong to Israel to begin with. International law and the re-affirmation by the 2004 International Court of Justice has established this. Why is it so, so difficult to actually follow International law?

Wednesday July 24, 2013, 7:58 am
Lily T.

Israeli's don't give a rats when it comes to International Law or the UN ,when it comes to JERUSALEM.

Any part of JERUSALEM is none Negotiable.

Lily T. (8)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 1:14 pm
John Lewis - I wouldn't expect them to care. Like any other common thief, laws are the things they are least concerned about. Greed, on the other hand, is. Considering they are signatory to much of this speaks volumes, but I wouldn't expect more from a hypocritical state.

Lily T. (8)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 1:15 pm
Also, kind of sounds fascist too.

Alexander Werner (53)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 2:32 pm
Lily, why do you think Israel should give its land to Palestinian Arabs, when Jordanian Arabs got 80% of the land allocated for both Arab and Jewish states?

Don't you think that 22 states already given to one ethnic group badly skewed the balance at the UN, and made the Arab voice much louder, than the voice of China which has 22 provinces and more of the population?

If the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza want to have their own state which they never had before, and Israel agrees to that, that's OK. But certainly Arabs cannot demand something which never was theirs, like Jerusalem.

And as for referendum - that first referendum is unlikely to happen. With fascists like Abbas or religious racists of Hamas NOBODY can live in peace. They can't live in peace with each other, who in his sound mind would expect them to live in peace with Israelis.

Kerry make burn a good few bucks on kerosene to fly there and back, but as long, as Arabs are getting billions every year for being "refugees" while living in Arab countries, they won't sign anything taking away those billions.

Scammers never stop while money is coming.


Lily T. (8)
Wednesday July 24, 2013, 3:26 pm
Bob A. - I am not responding to your continual nonsense. You can ask me all you want but until you actually want to have a discussion based on fact not fantasy, I am not interested in it. I have read your posts about 22 Arab states as if they are one big country. I have also seen your complete lack of knowledge when it comes to this conflict. So I have no interest in spinning my wheels with you.

Stephen Brian (23)
Thursday July 25, 2013, 12:04 am
Hi Lily,

There are a few good reasons why it is so difficult for them to follow the demands of the U.N. on this issue:

#1: It would put the seat of their government within firing range of a border with a state likely to turn hostile should Palestinians achieve sovereignty. That is not a militarily tenable position.

#2: U.N. demands are not, in fact, international law. International law is composed of treaties to which states have agreed to render themselves subject. The peace-treaty with Jordan left the status quo in effect in Jerusalem, with Israel holding jurisdiction and negotiating a final resolution with Palestinians. The U.N. demand was permitted under the U.N. Charter only because it was assumed that failure to return the territory to Jordan prevented peace. Demonstrably, this was not so.

#3: Israel has every reason to believe that human rights-standards would be totally ignored regarding people of its dominant ethnic group should it hand that land over to Palestinians. Access to Jewish religious sites was forbidden to Israelis while East Jerusalem was under Jordanian rule. During the Second Intifada, Palestinians ceased recognition of Rachel's Tomb and burned Joseph's tomb. At this point, they simply cannot be trusted with control over the Western Wall.

#4: Israeli governments depend upon at least near-universal support of Israeli Jews. Keeping Jerusalem is a key part of maintaining support among Israel's fastest-growing demographic, Orthodox Jews. Were an Israeli government to hand East Jerusalem over to Palestinians, another government would be elected that would retake it, especially after the overwhelmingly likely mistreatment under Palestinian rule. Any given government in an even remotely democratic Israel simply lacks the mandate, ad arguably the power, to hand over East Jerusalem.

Lily T. (8)
Thursday July 25, 2013, 7:41 pm
"#2: U.N. demands are not, in fact, international law. International law is composed of treaties to which states have agreed to render themselves subject. The peace-treaty with Jordan left the status quo in effect in Jerusalem, with Israel holding jurisdiction and negotiating a final resolution with Palestinians. The U.N. demand was permitted under the U.N. Charter only because it was assumed that failure to return the territory to Jordan prevented peace. Demonstrably, this was not so."

Let's start with the definition of International law. From Cornell Law:

Traditionally, international law consisted of rules and principles governing the relations and dealings of nations with each other, though recently, the scope of international law has been redefined to include relations between states and individuals, and relations between international organizations. Public international law, concerns itself only with questions of rights between several nations or nations and the citizens or subjects of other nations. In contrast, Private international law deals with controversies between private persons, natural or juridical, arising out of situations having significant relationship to more than one nation. In recent years the line between public and private international law have became increasingly uncertain. Issues of private international law may also implicate issues of public international law, and many matters of private international law have substantial significance for the international community of nations. (

Do UN Resolutions constitute International Law? Well, let's look at what Cornell Law says again.


Customary law and conventional law are primary sources of international law. Customary international law results when states follow certain practices generally and consistently out of a sense of legal obligation. Recently the customary law was codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Conventional international law derives from international agreements and may take any form that the contracting parties agree upon. Agreements may be made in respect to any matter except to the extent that the agreement conflicts with the rules of international law incorporating basic standards of international conduct or the obligations of a member state under the Charter of the United Nations. International agreements create law for the parties of the agreement. They may also lead to the creation of customary international law when they are intended for adherence generally and are in fact widely accepted. Customary law and law made by international agreement have equal authority as international law. Parties may assign higher priority to one of the sources by agreement. However, some rules of international law are recognized by international community as peremptory, permitting no derogation. Such rules can be changed or modified only by a subsequent peremptory norm of international law. (

Further, "The UN Charter and the United Nations as an organization were established on October 26, 1945. The UN Charter is a multilateral treaty that serves as the organization's constitution. The UN Charter contains a supremacy clause that makes it the highest authority of international law. The clause states that the UN Charter shall prevail in the event of a conflict between the obligations of the members of the United Nations under the present charter and their obligations under any other international agreement (art. 103)."

Read more: International Law - Un Charter And United Nations - Rights, Security, Council, and Human - JRank Articles

"The United Nations, the most influential among international organizations, was created on June 26, 1945. The declared purposes of United Nations are to maintain peace and security, to develop friendly relations among nations, to achieve international cooperation in solving international problems, and to be a center for harmonizing the actions of the nations and attaining their common ends. The Charter of the United Nations has been adhered to by virtually all states. Even the few remaining non-member states have acquiesced in the principles it established. The International Court of Justice is established by the UN Charter as its principal judicial organ."

Stephen Brian (23)
Saturday July 27, 2013, 12:39 am
The redefinition of international law failed to account for what makes something a law rather than a statement of principles. That redefinition is about what people call "international law" and has nothing to do with any change in the obligations of states.

For any norm to function as a law, it must be clearly stated and carry a known penalty for breach. To carry such a known penalty, there must be an enforcement-clause in the statement of the norm and a credible entity to enforce the law. People throw the phrase "international law" around to include every norm of state-behaviour that they imagine, going far beyond what constitutes effective law. That's the redefinition to which Cornell Law's stuff referred.

If you hear, "They're ignoring international law! We have to do something!", it's nonsense. If it were law, then it would either have a clear enforcement-clause, or be a self-enforcing norm. If it's a violation of a statement of principles or agreement lacking an enforcement-clause, the violator was not formally bound to abide by the norm (or there is no penalty for violating it). If it's an agreement with a NGO or other entity incapable of enforcing the "law", then that's between those two sides. It sucks to be the weaker one, but the weak don't get to impose obligations on the strong. That's how power works, and failure to recognizethat in international law would just discredit all international law and lead to incredible bloodshed. (The last time that happened, the 30 Years' War killed a third of Europe.)

Here's an example of real international law: Soldiers in war are required to avoid firing towards civilians. Failure to abide by that law relieves the opposing forces from any obligations through which that behaviour grants tactical or strategic advantage, up to and including that against firing upon civilians on those soldiers' side of the conflict. (There is a strategic advantage in war from firing upon civilians as it puts the other side's government under greater pressure to negotiate, leaving one's side in a stronger bargaining position. That gets evened out by equalizing the pressure.) There is a force that can be counted upon to enforce the law (the other side in the war) and the penalty is clear. There is no reluctance to enforce the law, no wondering what to do, no activism or political pressure needed.

Also, "The Charter of the United Nations has been adhered to by virtually all states."???
Do you know what obligations there are on states under the Charter?

Lily T. (8)
Tuesday July 30, 2013, 9:10 pm
Stephen - if you want to have a serious conversation not just a word game, let me know. I am not wasting my time responding to your usual bull. You seem to always want to make things up and provide nothing in support of your posts. Until you want to make a serious argument, I have no interest in banging my head against a concrete wall.

Stephen Brian (23)
Tuesday July 30, 2013, 10:13 pm
Hi Lily,

Yo're not banging your head against a concrete wall., You're banging it against reality, which is a lot harder.

You objected to one of my points on the grounds that international law has been redefined to include things that have nothing to do with the obligations of states, de jure or de facto. Essentially, you insisted that U.N. resolutions are included in international law because people call them "international law" despite the fact that they have nothing to do with any law. I'm not the one playing word games here.
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in World

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.