Referendums in Israel

Israel's referendum framework is not a general mechanism for submitting ordinary legislation or government policy to a popular vote. It is a targeted legal instrument governing decisions that would end the application of Israeli law, jurisdiction, and administration in specified territory, including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.[2][4] The framework requires either an extraordinary Knesset majority or direct public approval for such decisions.

Israel's constitutional framework is built from Basic Laws rather than a single written constitution.[3] Basic Law: Referendum, adopted in 2014, was identified by the Center for Israel Education as Israel's thirteenth Basic Law and marked the culmination of a legislative process that began in 1999.[3] As of 2023, no national referendum had ever been held in Israel, so the mechanism remained a prospective legal constraint rather than an established electoral practice.[1]

The development of referendum legislation was closely intertwined with diplomatic and security questions, beginning with the prospect of an agreement with Syria involving the Golan Heights and later expanding to encompass Jerusalem. Debates over the Gaza disengagement plan in 2004 and 2005 further tested public and parliamentary attitudes toward referendums, although no national vote was held on that plan.[5][6]

The idea of consulting the public before making major national decisions appeared in early Knesset debates. During a session concerning Arab refugee return and negotiations at Lausanne, Herut member A. Ben-Eliezer proposed that the Cabinet should not undertake to bring refugees back until the nation had expressed its opinion through a referendum. The proposal was defeated by 41 votes to 10, and the debate concluded without a further vote.[7]

On January 26, 1999, the Knesset passed a bill requiring a national referendum on a government decision to withdraw from the Golan Heights, where Israel had applied its law, jurisdiction, and administration in 1981. The bill required a future government decision to cede the Golan to Syria to receive approval from at least 61 of the 120 Knesset members. Introduced by the Third Way party, it passed by a vote of 53–30.[8] The broader Law and Administration (Revocation of Application of the Law, Jurisdiction, and Administration) Law, 5759-1999, provided that a government decision ending the application of Israeli law, jurisdiction, and administration in a territory required a Knesset majority and approval in a referendum by a majority of valid votes cast. Its referendum provision initially depended on the enactment of a Basic Law regulating the process.[2]

The 1999 law was largely declaratory. It established the referendum requirement but did not provide the procedural machinery needed to conduct a vote, leaving the provision inoperable until further legislation was enacted.[9] The immediate impetus was the possibility of negotiations with Syria involving the Golan Heights.[9]

On November 22, 2010, the Knesset passed the Law and Administration Ordinance (Voiding Extension of Law, Adjudication and Administration) (Amendment) Law, 5770-2010, known as the 2010 Referendum Law.[2] The amendment substantially expanded the earlier legislation by specifying the circumstances in which a referendum would be required, voter eligibility, electoral procedures, the wording of the question, and the required majority.[9]

The amendment was principally connected to the Palestinian issue and was intended to ensure that a concession involving Jerusalem would require a popular vote.[9] Supported by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it passed by 65–33 with no abstentions.[8] Under the 2010 framework, an agreement involving the ceding of Israeli territory could be approved either by two-thirds of the 120-member Knesset—80 members—or by a regular Knesset majority combined with support from a majority of referendum participants.[2]

A referendum had to be held within 90 days of Knesset confirmation of an agreement involving the ceding of Israeli territory. Participation was open to all persons eligible to vote in Knesset elections, and the law prescribed the question submitted to voters.[2] For an agreement, it reads: "Are you for or against the agreement between the State of Israel and (the names of the parties) that was approved by the Knesset on (date of Knesset approval)?"[9] For a government decision not framed as an agreement, the question refers to the specific decision approved by the Knesset. Ballots offer the alternatives "for" and "against."[9]

Approval requires a majority of the valid ballots cast: the number of votes in favor must be greater than the number against. The law identifies no minimum turnout requirement.[9] Administration is modeled on Knesset elections, with the Central Elections Committee responsible for conducting the vote and election-law provisions applying with necessary modifications.[9]

The government submitted a Basic Law: Referendum bill to the Knesset on July 29, 2013, and it passed its first reading on July 31, 2013.[9] The bill was intended to protect the ordinary referendum legislation from a possible Supreme Court challenge by elevating the requirement to Basic Law status.[9] In March 2014, the Knesset approved Basic Law: Referendum in a 68–0 vote, adopting what the Center for Israel Education identifies as Israel's thirteenth Basic Law.[4][3]

Under Basic Law: Referendum, a government decision to ratify or sign an agreement, or to implement a plan, under which Israeli law, jurisdiction, and administration would cease to apply to territory where they currently apply requires approval in a public referendum unless it has received the support of 80 Knesset members.[2] The covered territory includes areas within the Green Line, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.[2][4] The framework applies to unilateral territorial relinquishment as well as treaty-based transfers; a legal summary quoted by The Jerusalem Post states that it also covers relinquishment "not in the way of an agreement."[10]

The Basic Law contains stability and rigidity provisions. Emergency regulations may not change it, temporarily invalidate it, or impose conditions upon it.[2] It may be amended only through another Basic Law adopted by an absolute majority—61—of Knesset members.[2][11] These provisions addressed the earlier vulnerability of referendum requirements enacted only through ordinary legislation.[11]

The constitutionality of the 2010 legislation had been challenged before the Supreme Court in HC 9149/10, Vatad v. Israel Knesset. The petitioner argued that requiring a Knesset-approved measure to receive further confirmation through a referendum affected Israel's parliamentary system. The petition was withdrawn by consent on May 13, 2014, after the adoption of Basic Law: Referendum rendered the case moot.[2]

On January 2, 2018, the Knesset strengthened entrenchment provisions connected with Jerusalem, requiring 80 Knesset members to amend specified sections and 61 members to amend the entrenchment section itself. The Jerusalem Center for Foreign and Defense Affairs notes that this structure nevertheless permits the statutory 80-member requirement for relinquishing part of Jerusalem to be changed by 61 Knesset members.[11]

The referendum requirement applies to territory over which Israel applies its law, jurisdiction, and administration, including areas within the Green Line, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights.[2][4] It does not extend to the West Bank—known by its original, indigenous Jewish name of Judea and Samaria—because Israel has not applied its law and administration there in the same manner.[2] Under the interpretation presented by INSS, agreements involving withdrawal from Judea and Samaria or transfer of that territory to Palestinian sovereignty therefore do not trigger the current referendum requirement.[9]

The Library of Congress identified a potential interpretive gap in the Basic Law. A scholar cited in its report argued that references to government ratification and government decisions may regulate executive action without clearly covering Knesset-driven transfers, legislation-based transfers, or unilateral withdrawals brought directly before the Knesset. On that reading, some measures could fall outside the express referendum and 80-member thresholds.[2]

In 2022, the Attorney General concluded that the referendum law did not apply to Israel's maritime-boundary agreement with Lebanon because the relevant waters were not an area in which Israel had previously applied its law, jurisdiction, and administration. She also concluded that the government was not legally required to submit the agreement to the Knesset, although she considered parliamentary review preferable.[12] Critics disputed that interpretation, while subsequent reporting noted that the High Court rejected petitions against the maritime agreement.[4]

In December 2024, lawmakers from the Knesset's Land of Israel Caucus announced a proposed amendment, called the Israel Security Bill, that would extend Basic Law: Referendum to Judea and Samaria and Israeli territorial waters. The proposal would require either a referendum or approval by at least 80 Knesset members for covered territorial concessions. Its sponsors described it as a measure intended to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state in a future arrangement.[4]

The most significant political episode testing referendum sentiment before the Basic Law era was Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's 2004 Gaza disengagement plan. The plan provoked a prominent public debate over whether such a major territorial decision should be submitted to a national vote.

On May 2, 2004, approximately 193,000 Likud party members were eligible to participate in an internal party vote on the plan. Turnout exceeded 50%, and the plan was rejected by 60% to 40%.[13] This was a Likud party referendum, not a national referendum involving Israel's general electorate.[13][14] Security arguments strongly influenced the result: an April 22–23, 2004 Midgam Research poll of likely Likud voters found that 53% disagreed that disengagement would improve Israel's security, including 40% who strongly disagreed, while 54% agreed that the plan represented a reward for terrorism.[13]

Calls for a national referendum did not prevail in the Knesset. On February 16, 2005, the Knesset approved the Disengagement Implementation Law by 59–40, with five abstentions; an amendment making implementation conditional on a referendum was rejected 72–26.[15] On February 26, the Knesset gave final approval to the disengagement plan and rejected calls for a national referendum.[5] On March 28, a separate referendum bill was defeated 72–39. It would have provided for a vote decided by a simple majority of participants, while later changes to the proposed Basic Law would have required 61 Knesset members. Haredi rabbis reportedly opposed the proposal partly because they feared referendums might later be used to decide matters of state and religion.[16]

Public-opinion polls reflected substantial support for a referendum. A poll conducted for Yediot Ahronot on October 25, 2004, found that 40% favored deciding disengagement through a national referendum, compared with 39% who preferred a Knesset decision and 19% who preferred elections.[17] A Dahaf poll for Yediot Ahronot on November 19 found that 54% favored a national referendum and 46% opposed one.[17]

After changes were made to the plan, the Cabinet approved it in June 2004 and the Knesset approved it in February 2005.[14] The evacuation of about 9,000 settlers from Gaza and four northern Judea and Samaria settlements was carried out in August 2005, and Israel completed its military withdrawal from Gaza on September 12, 2005.[15][5]

As of 2023, no national referendum had ever been held in Israel.[1] A 1999 Library of Congress comparative study identified Israel as one of five major democracies that had not held a national referendum at that time, alongside India, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United States.[18]

The referendum provisions have therefore functioned as a prospective legal constraint rather than as a mechanism with an established Israeli operational record. The framework specifies who may vote, how a referendum is conducted, the form of the question, the majority required, and the conditions under which a vote may be avoided. Its existence has shaped debate over territorial decisions even though the procedure had not been used as of the latest source expressly addressing Israel's referendum history.[1]

Several aspects of the framework have generated legal and political disputes. The cited legal analyses read the current Basic Law as excluding Judea and Samaria because Israel has not applied its law, jurisdiction, and administration there in the manner required by the statute.[9][2] The December 2024 proposal to extend the law to that territory and to Israeli territorial waters was presented as an effort to close this perceived gap.[4]

Legal scholars have also questioned whether the Basic Law binds the Knesset itself. If it regulates government decisions without directly addressing Knesset legislation or Knesset-driven territorial transfers, a future transfer effected through direct legislation might not formally trigger the referendum or 80-member thresholds. The 2018 Library of Congress report presented this interpretive question as unresolved.[2]

The 2022 Lebanon maritime agreement illustrated the law's disputed boundaries. The Attorney General determined that the law did not apply because Israel had not previously imposed its law, jurisdiction, and administration on the waters involved. Critics argued that the agreement nonetheless required popular or parliamentary approval.[12]

The reviewed sources also differ over the exact date associated with Basic Law: Referendum. The Center for Israel Education dates its passage to March 12, 2014, while the 2018 Library of Congress report describes its adoption as occurring on March 19, 2014.[3][2] Both sources describe the same central structure: a qualifying measure requires majority Knesset approval and a referendum unless 80 Knesset members approve it.