Today's Haaretz (June 1) featured an editorial which used the plebiscite in France as a strong justification for opposing a referendum here in Israel on the Disengagement.
I felt that by dragging the Israeli angle into the French 'Non' vote, Haaretz did itself a disservice. First of all, I do not see any connection between the referendum held in France on the EU Constitution and a possible referendum in Israel on the Disengagement from Gaza and Northern Samaria. Why couldn't Haaretz focus on the French plebiscite and the historic 'Non' vote on its own terms, without bringing Israel into it. As it is, I find it strange that Haaretz never comments on international affairs unless it has relevance to Israel. If Haaretz views itself as the "thinking person's newspaper", it should be able to make its voice heard on international developments, in the same way as any other quality newspaper around the world. For example, The London Times or The Guardian, to name but two newspapers, will feature leading articles on any important international story, whether it takes place in the United States, the Ivory Coast or in Israel. I expect insularity from The Jerusalem Post, but Haaretz?
I have one other problem with the comparison made between the Chirac referendum and a possible 'Disengagement' referendum in Israel. Quite simply, there is no comparison! The French plebiscite was held on an internal issue that posed no problems vis-a-vis international law - namely, whether or not to accept the EU Constitution. Israel, on the other hand, has no business holding a referendum on whether to withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank, because the decision is not Israel's to make. No country recognizes Gaza and the West Bank as Israeli sovereign territory. At best, they are disputed territories, and even the Israeli Government reluctantly accepts this, hence its decision to withdraw.
I felt that by dragging the Israeli angle into the French 'Non' vote, Haaretz did itself a disservice. First of all, I do not see any connection between the referendum held in France on the EU Constitution and a possible referendum in Israel on the Disengagement from Gaza and Northern Samaria. Why couldn't Haaretz focus on the French plebiscite and the historic 'Non' vote on its own terms, without bringing Israel into it. As it is, I find it strange that Haaretz never comments on international affairs unless it has relevance to Israel. If Haaretz views itself as the "thinking person's newspaper", it should be able to make its voice heard on international developments, in the same way as any other quality newspaper around the world. For example, The London Times or The Guardian, to name but two newspapers, will feature leading articles on any important international story, whether it takes place in the United States, the Ivory Coast or in Israel. I expect insularity from The Jerusalem Post, but Haaretz?
I have one other problem with the comparison made between the Chirac referendum and a possible 'Disengagement' referendum in Israel. Quite simply, there is no comparison! The French plebiscite was held on an internal issue that posed no problems vis-a-vis international law - namely, whether or not to accept the EU Constitution. Israel, on the other hand, has no business holding a referendum on whether to withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank, because the decision is not Israel's to make. No country recognizes Gaza and the West Bank as Israeli sovereign territory. At best, they are disputed territories, and even the Israeli Government reluctantly accepts this, hence its decision to withdraw.
