Let’s talk about peace

Op-ed: Why is there public debate on Iran op, but not on dubious peace deals like Oslo?

Reuters | Published: 11.06.11, 19:02

Here are some words about the notion of public discourse: As of late, we have been hearing a fascinating demand for a public debate on the option of an Israeli strike on Iran. Fans of such discourse are claiming that our elected government cannot take such significant decision without engaging in public debate.

Somehow, these people ignore the fact that once every three years (on average) we see a lively, democratic and comprehensive public debate around here, in the form of elections. During this process, the people whom the nation wishes to see leading our country are elected for office.

These elected representatives then take the right decisions on behalf of all of us, manage our policy, and also decide who to attack and when. This kind of public debate is known as “democratic elections.”

Never before has there been a public debate in Israel on whether to embark on military operations such as Cast Lead in Gaza or Defensive Shield in Judea and Samaria. There was also no debate on whether to embark on the Sinai campaign in 1956, the Entebbe Operation in 1976, or the Six-Day War.

There was also no referendum held on the pros and cons of bombing the nuclear reactor in Iraq before we embarked on that mission.

However, if we are already on the subject of public debates, maybe instead of holding them ahead of secret operations, it would be good to adopt them before signing dubious peace deals like Oslo or embarking on moves such as the Gaza disengagement?

After all, the public debate ahead of such enterprises is usually quite monotonous, and the media support for these moves is usually automatic and overwhelming.