Yes, WE KNOW WHAT THE PEOPLE ARE FOR so no need to put to a vote. I think we can do away with elections altogether and simply have little poles. The fact that someone is for 2 state solutions does not articulate what they are willing to forgo or not - it is in-fact even visible in arguments between the politicians that agree on 2 state solution. But how does number #20 justify not going to a referendum that he knows for sure (by divine knowledge) - the slurs and demonetization starts - and who will do it - the settlers All of them? , minority? , why do they have to wait for a referendum ? = and since when potential violance is a reason to withhold democratic processes - I know when - when it suits the political views of the person suggesting to bend democracy - like Number 20 and lapid and tzipi.

The Jordan Valley and surrounds will need an immense security presence extending decades into the future And will be needed to link to the rest of Israel . Islamic parts of Israel could be swapped secured by Arab economic help and stabilised by Scandanavian and Dutch Forces.

It is hard to imagine a more important decision which will effect everyone in the state of Israel then a Peace Deal. There is also a long history of governments/politicians lie-ing around the subject [making statements get them elected and then doing the opposite] - Thus on this one item which is so clearly THEM MAJOR IMPACT Issue for Lapid not to agree to have a referendum (and same for Tzipi Livini, and co) is a good de-masking of the their 'convictions' - democracy is OK as long as it suites my need - but the voters should not be consulted when I risk a backlash. SHAME SHAME SHAME. In switzerland in they are referendum mad , however, to avoid the one item that impacts every citizen of the country is to make a mockery of democracy. All it says - I will lie to you to get elected and when the time comes I will do whatever I want since I am in power and do not have to be elected . Don't Let Lapid and Tzipi get away with this.

Only satisfaction sexual and economic is possible never peace because Humans innately are territorial and tribalistic .The Arabs will not accept the mainstream Jewish peace offers but if allowed to live well but with tough security a grudging quiet is possible .Anywaythe big threat is outside haters of Arabs and Jews so they better learn a survivalist cooperation and worry not about States and land ownership but ultra survivalism and Horrific Deterrance together.

Where was the referendum when we made peace with Egypt and evacuated settlers from the Sinai? Where was the referendum when we made peace with Jordan --or for any of the agreements that Israel has made with the Palestinians such as Oslow? And where was the referendum when the GOI decided to unilaterally disengage from Gaza forcing thousands of settlers to relocate? Are you now claiming that all of these agreements and actions were undemocratic? Nonsense. The proposed referendum is simply a tactic by settlers to forestall the inevitable; the complete surrender of Israel's claim to almost all of the territories occupied in 1967. Requiring approval by referendum would cast a shadow of uncertainty over the entire negotiation process. How about a referendum NOW , authorizing the government to negotiate peace on whatever terms it thinks best for Israel including the partial or complete ceding to Palestine of any and all territory occupied in 1967 including East Jerusalem? It makes more sense to have such a referendum now than to seek approval after negotiations are completed. If the last election and current polls are any indication such a referendum would win hands down.

referendum(s). It would be democratic, no?

..because you know you are a tiny minority willing to cede Jewish land to your mortal enemies. If the two state solution was so wonderful, why not vote on it?

Actually Jake, you are sadly misinformed if you think that only a "tiny minority" of Israelis support abandoning the settlements in support of a two state solution. The last election should clearly show you that that is the majority positions --and this has been confirmed by repeated public polling. What I oppose is not democracy but unnecessarily introducing an obstructive element of uncertainty into future peace negotiaitions. The decision not to pander to popularism and allow this to happen was done in accordance with democratic principles. So what's your problem with democracy?