Contrary to the erroneous and pernicious “dictum” pronounced by Binyamin Netanyahu at the March 1992 Likud Convention, when he was elected the Likud’s chairman:

No government, even if democratic, can bind its successor to any agreement. The reason: the latter is a contingent phenomenon dependent on whether the agreement continues to serve the good of either party to the agreement or is not violated by one of them.

Netanyahu then and now

Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel. Photo: US Department of State (taken during his visit to the USA, during which Obama had him ushered out the back door of the White House while Obama dined privatelyl with his family.)

At that March 1992 convention – when it was known by insiders that Labor was meeting with the PLO – a resolution was proposed from the floor that the Likud would not be bound by any agreement entered into by the Government that endangers the State of Israel.

Netanyahu opposed the resolution on the fallacious grounds that a democracy must abide by its agreements. I was unofficially consulted on this issue, and I cited a 19^th century case in American Constitutional law in which the U.S. Supreme Court rejected that position.

Nevertheless, Netanyahu is still wedded to the 1993 Oslo Agreement despite its having been violated countless times by the PLO-Palestinian Authority, and despite its having resulted in the murder and maiming of thousands of Jewish men, women, and children.

Why?

His fixation on Oslo has nothing to do with democracy. He simply lacks the wherewithal for an alternative to Oslo, since he has rejected its abrogation.

Ironically, the PA recently renounced Oslo! This leaves Israel additional latitude to declare Jewish sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.

But if Judea and Samaria were to become a burgeoning population of religious Zionists, that would evaporate the power of the Likud in the Knesset and in the Government.☼