Posted on 02/09/2005 10:37:06 AM PST by anotherview
Feb. 9, 2005 4:33 | Updated Feb. 9, 2005 6:36
Yosef opposes referendum on pullout
By GIL HOFFMAN
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz shows Shas spiritual leader Rabbi Ovadia Yosef the map of the disengagement plan to try and convince him to support the plan
Photo: Ariel Jerozolimski
Shas mentor Rabbi Ovadia Yosef decided on Tuesday to oppose a national referendum on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan, declining to follow the lead of Degel Hatorah mentor Rabbi Shalom Yosef Elyashiv.
Elyashiv stunned his rabbinical cohorts on Monday when he endorsed Knesset Law Committee chairman Michael Eitan's referendum bill.
Degel MK Avraham Ravitz said the bill was acceptable to the rabbi because it limited the use of referendums to sanctioning withdrawal from land and guaranteed that they could not be used to change the Jewish character of the state.
But Yosef said in a meeting with Shas MK Nissim Ze'ev that he would not sway from the traditional haredi view against referendums.
Rabbis from Degel's former partner in United Torah Judaism, Agudat Yisrael, issued similar rulings.
"It's the job of elected officials to do the decision-making," Yosef said.
Shas chairman Eli Yishai mocked the supporters of a referendum on disengagement, saying: "Is Finance Minister Binyamin Netanyahu prepared to hold a referendum on his economic plan, on the collapsing health system, on the hungry children?"
Without the votes of Shas and Agudat Yisrael, there is not enough support to approve a national referendum unless Sharon unexpectedly changes his mind and endorses it.
But referendum proponents said they would not give up their fight.
"The hope for a referendum has not ended," said a spokesman for Likud MK Uzi Landau. "We will maintain pressure on Likud ministers and Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and they will eventually realize that a referendum is the only way to prevent bloodshed and avoid a national rift."
I also think Prime Minister Sharon can bring a lot more pressue to bear than Uzi Landau.
The far-right's constant threats of Jew fighting Jew must be music to Arab ears. Enough!
They should doa referendum. Then whatever the outcome it would be possible to say that the decision was that of the people not the politicians.
I disagree. First, it would make the current schedule impossible and it would derail what just happened at Sharm-el-Sheikh, the first hopeful moves in years. Second, it requires changes to our Basic Law that would have far ranging consequences for the structure of our parliamentary system.
The people elect the Knesset. The Knesset decides. It's Democratic and it is the will of the people. Not the will of the Freeper, of course.
I see. I did not know that it would be hard under the current law.
A new law would have to be passed amending the Basic Law. That, in itself, is not difficult. It could pass three readings in the Knesset. It is, however, a fundamental change in our political system which is not to be taken lightly.
Americans are quite rightly reticent about making Constitutional amendments. We need to be equally reticent about tinkering with the foundations of our government. Our last attempt, direct election of the Prime Minister, led to a party with 19 seats in the Knesset leading the government and forced into a broad but tortured coalition. That was Prime Minister Sharon's first term. The next election, when we went back to the old system, the Prime Minister and Likud walked away with 40 seats and a real ability to lead.
The fact remains that 2/3 of Israelis support disengagement according to pretty much all the polls. The Cabinet voted in favor. The Knesset voted in favor by a 67-45 margin. That is all that should be needed. Referrendum came up only when the opponents of disengagement lost all the votes.
Tell me: would you like to see America's continued presence in Iraq put to a national referrendum, or do you prefer that the President and Congress be able to lead rather than follow the polls and the mood of the moment?
Tell me: would you like to see America's continued presence in Iraq put to a national referrendum, or do you prefer that the President and Congress be able to lead rather than follow the polls and the mood of the moment?
............................................................
I would prefer the latter. The main reason I would support a referendum it Israel would be that it would quiet voices that claim it is against Israel's wishes.
If there were no long lasting consequences to our political system I probably would agree with you and wouldn't be arguing against it.
I disagree with your disagreement. A democracy is something like a corporation. The shareholders elect officers to run the day to day business of the company. But the officers cannot dissolve the company or make drastic alterations to the company's major assets and business without submitting such measures to a vote of the shareholders. The disengagement represents a major alienation of the Corporate Assets of Israel. The shareholders should decide.
Israel, like the U.S., is not a direct democracy. It, like the U.S., has a Republican form of government. A government is not a corporation.
The American Founding Fathers feared giving too much power to the masses. Do you think they were wrong?
You call Gaza an asset. I call it a liability.
I'm sure you realize that I did not mean that a government is not a corporation, but the analogy holds. Let us say that, somehow, the "government" of the US decided to give away Texas, because it was too much of a liability to deal with cross-border attacks from Mexico. Would you feel that such an alteration of the Union of States could be accomplished without direct appeal to the popular will of all the states? As you may have mentioned, this would be akin to amending the constitution with the heavy procedural burdent involved.
The founding Fathers were right, but I don't think they meant to allow the "government" to dismember the country, over the objection of the people. Yes, I know what the polls say in Israel. I don't accept the polls as a fair measure of the popular will. They have been proved wrong before.
Gaza is a liability as Tel Aviv is a liability as Jerusalem is a liability. The arabs don't want the Jews anywhere in Israel. They say so all the time. They said so today with rockets and mortars.
The difference between Gaza and Tel Aviv is that Gaza has over two million hostile Arabs in it and only 8,500 Jews.
Oh, and when did Gaza become part of Israel? We have never annexed it and no Israeli government has ever claimed it as part of Israel. This is different than east Jerusalem or Golan, both of which were annexed to Israel.
It is a distinction without a difference. Those same 2 million hostile arabs are just as hostile to Jews in Tel Aviv as they are to the Jews in Gaza.
I did not say Gaza was a part of Israel. Leaving aside the wisdom of failure to annex the area, the point is it is an asset in the geopolitical dispute. If I abandon it, I concede absolutely my claims, territorial or otherwise, to the area. Giving it up in exchange for nothing casts doubts on the stereotype of the Jew as a shrewd businessman. Here, it is no laughing matter, because the price of the bad bargain is paid in Jewish blood. Ariel Sharon use to think so.
And Israel is 5 million Jews surrounded by a Billion Muslims.
Using your ideology we should evacuate Israel.
They originally opposed the pull out and called it suicide but because Sharon promised them money well now it is great! They would sell their own mothers just for government welfare for their fictious Yeshivas.
The Chayil Party is one of the few true Patriotic Parties in Israel.
Patriotic or racist? I think the latter.
Tell me, do you live in Israel? Are you Israeli? Or are you another American armchair warrior who would cost who knows how many Israeli lives if your ideas were implemented?
Shalom from Netanya, Israel.
That his argument is EXACTLY the same - differing only in scale- as the genocidal muslim arab terrorists is no coincidence.
The same arguments will be used for Judea and Samaria. And why not? It worked for Gaza.
Tell me, do you live in Israel? Are you Israeli? Or are you another American armchair warrior who would cost who knows how many Israeli lives if your ideas were implemented?
I think you are one of those Bolshevik Israelies who love to throw Patriotic Right Wingers in Jail. Thank God your not in charge here in America or else you would throw all Americans who voted for Bush in jail because they support fighting Islamo Facists.
What does it matter where I live?
Do you know Saudi Arabia is a Muslim Fascist state?
You probably do but never even been there. So that basically nulifies your argument.
Your an self hating ISrael peacnik who will bend over backwards to please Muslim Nazis but put your fellow JEws in jail if they dare hurt the feelings of one Muslim Nazi.
It wont work in Gaza because Heroic Jewish Pioneers will fight Sharon!
I am not saying I dont live in Israel or not because it does not matter.
If you cannot tell the difference between moving 8,500 people and moving 6 million I feel truly sorry for you.
Oh, and yes, we will have to leave the Arab population centers in Judea and Samaria if we are ever to be secure. That you cannot see that and are so blinded by your hatred of the Arab is pitiful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.