I didn't think I said that. I bumbled around for a bit and concluded that it was in fact very hard to decide whether the entire country or just the immediately relevant bit should be consulted.
Whose territory is East Jerusalem according to the Oslo Accords, or whatever the most recent agreement was?
Well, Israeli law would say that. In cases of disputed territory, it is pointless to only accept the views one side of the dispute. That would be like Britain saying "under British law we own Gibraltar" and ignoring Spanish claims to the contrary under the pretext that they don't count, because they're not British law. I'm not sure if this is actually the case with Gibraltar, I'm just using a hypothetical example.
In any case, doesn't Israeli law also have some provision for freedom of speech - where this does not obviously promote violence? In which case any Israeli attempt to simply gag politics in East Jerusalem is illegal under their very own laws.
Self-determination. Well. Possibly my personal confusion over the issue has affected my responses in discussion. I support the right in principle for any group to govern itself. Basques, Palestinians, Kurds, whatever. But this rather vague and theoretical stance runs into practical problems, because these self-governing territories have to come from somewhere, and you can't gratuitously take land away from OTHER groups who have just the same right to it as anyone else. On the other hand, the only prior claim these groups have is a "we were here first" one, which isn't terribly strong. So and self-determination process faces two apparently insurmountable problems. Firstly, how to create a fair and reasonable sample space for any referendum, and secondly, how to act on its results in a fair manner to all parties.
Oh, yes. I knew Israel and Britain are about the only (possibly THE only) countries without a written constitution. Does anybody know WHY it's not written down?