To the editor:
In the United States, treaties require a two-thirds supermajority vote in the Senate. This is clearly wise, since committing the country to a treaty with a foreign country or countries on a partisan basis without a general consensus would be extremely divisive. Even important purely domestic legislation passed with the support of only one party, as was the case with Obamacare and the tax cut, has harmfully helped create what now seems to be one nation, divided.
The same importance for widespread support of treaties exists for other democratic countries. The legislation being put forward in Israel doesn't go nearly as far as the Constitution, requiring a two-thirds approval only for the division of the capital, and does not deserve the criticism implicit in the article in The New York Times. Anyone who thinks that's unreasonable should think about what the effect on America would be were the Senate to approve transferring a portion of Washington, D.C. to a foreign government by a party-line 51-49 vote.
The proposed legislation would in no way "doom" the so-called "2-state solution," something that has been repeatedly rejected by the Palestinian Arabs. The reality remains that the Israeli public would force its government to accept reasonable peace proposal while both the Palestinian Arab public and leadership are unwilling to even sit down and negotiate with Israel, no less agree to peace.
Sincerely,
Alan Stein