Legislation seeking to apply the Referendum Law to Judea and Samaria, preventing the transfer of sovereign territory to foreigners, is being drafted during these days. This is not yet sovereignty, but a significant step in blocking the ideas from the Oslo school of thought. MK Simcha Rothman explains.
The Land of Israel Lobby in the Knesset , headed by MK Yuli Edelstein, MK Limor Sohn-HarMelech and MK Simcha Rothman, is currently promoting legislation that will establish a high hurdle in the face of any future attempts to relinquish Israeli territories and hand them over to foreign control. The chairman of the Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, MK Simcha Rothman explains the significance of the emerging law.
“Currently, Israel has a law on its books called the Referendum Law that states that in order to relinquish a sovereign territory of the State of Israel, or to abrogate Israeli sovereignty on a territory of that kind, the government would be required to obtain a special majority consisting of eighty Knesset members. If the government fails to attain an eighty-member majority, it can be put to a referendum.” Ostensibly, a referendum is like a survey, and as such, its phrasing is liable to influence its results, but Rothman clarifies that in a referendum of that kind, the government’s decision will be presented verbatim and the question will be simple: for or against, with no convoluted formulations.
Confronting Leaders Who Disregard and Confronting Laws That Change
In fact, the law currently under discussion seeks to equate Judea and Samaria, an area not yet under Israeli sovereignty, with other parts of Israel in terms of the requirement to attain a special majority or a national referendum to relinquish it.
Is this truly an effective law? Does past experience, such as Yair Lapid’s relinquishing of Israeli territorial waters to Lebanese sovereignty without a majority, vote, or discussion, not prove that legislation of this kind can be disregarded? “Lapid’s action was, indeed, a serious error in my opinion when he did not bring it to the Knesset and the Referendum Law was not applied, but we must tell the truth that it concerned economic waters, and the claim was that the demarcation of the maritime border had not yet been performed. In other words, it was not demarcation of an official boundary that was abrogated. I do not agree with this claim, but this is the legal argument.”
“The law we are drafting is very clear. It says that relinquishing territory from Judea and Samaria will require a referendum and with no games. Furthermore, we are also including recognition of a Palestinian state in the law. Meaning, if I define the territory of the Palestinian Authority as the territory of a state, the Referendum Law is in effect in its regard. The transfer of governmental powers to any entity, including the Palestinian Authority, will also require this mechanism,” says Rothman. As an experienced lawyer, he notes the importance of ensuring the law does not create an absurd situation where, for example, the IDF’s exit from a village where a counter-terrorism operation was conducted would require a referendum because there is apparently a change in its sovereign status. Discussions between the votes on the path to ratification are meant to regularize the details and formulations that will ensure that the law is serious.
Regarding the possibility that the legislation will be abrogated in a different political constellation, MK Rothman says that indeed a law enacted now could be abrogated by a simple majority in a future Knesset, “but when this matter is established as a Basic Law, we know that Basic Laws are not abrogated every day. Beyond that, we are broadcasting to the world and the government the boundaries of the issue. If one seeks to disregard the Referendum Law and say they do not want to hear public opinion, there is a public and political price to pay. It is entirely possible that even in a coalition seeking to execute a political maneuver, there will be members who believe it is not right to do so by breaking the rules. Therefore, this step has significance in both international relations and in the domestic arena.”
In a reality where we all know that the determining authority is often the judicial system, i.e., the Supreme Court, there is no alternative to questioning the Supreme Court’s position on this legislation. Is there a loophole in the law through which the Supreme Court judges could explain why it should be invalidated? “I am not an astrologer predicting the future,” says Rothman. “This is entirely a political consideration. From a legal perspective, there is no problem with this law. It is a law that says how the State of Israel makes decisions. On the face of it, there is no rationale for intervention, by the court or any other body.”
In the spirit of these times, we ask MK Rothman to assess whether Donald Trump’s return to the White House is a substantive component of the sovereignty process. “The Trump administration, first and foremost, even if it has its own directions and ideas, will first want to know what Israel wants. Many in his circle have great regard for Israel’s will and would not want to impose their approach upon them. Like businessmen, they will want to know what is being discussed, and therefore there is significance to the law initiated by the Land of Israel Lobby, co-signed by eighty Knesset members, in opposition of the imposition of a Palestinian state. This law clarifies to the Americans what is not acceptable. Regarding what is acceptable, let us sit and talk, but it is clear that the public in Israel says that establishment of a terrorist state, especially after October 7th, is not an option. Afterward, we can discuss other solutions.”
The interview was first published in Issue 18 of the Sovereignty Journal. Click here for the issue.