Yesterday, Israel's new Foreign Minister made international news. On his first day in office, Avigdor Lieberman declared dead the Annapolis process created by Condeleeza Rice and the Bush Administration. Predictably, Lieberman's announcement caused a media firestorm. Electronic and written news reports covered this story and (generally) concluded that Lieberman had committed the worst kind of offense. Critics of Lieberman included the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, western public officials, editorial boards, and most anyone else involved in foreign affairs.

In the vast majority of the reports Lieberman is depicted as a "racist" who hates Arabs. He is also seen as an international outlaw who is challenging the very foundations of Middle Eastern international relations. The crime being committed is challenging the failed and dubious concept of a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli concept.

Before analyzing these attacks on the policies announced by Avigdor Lieberman take note of this fact. Two days before Lieberman spoke the Arab League applauded and supported the President of Sudan who is a real international criminal responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Darfur and who is wanted by an international court of justice. The world did not condemn the Butcher of Darfur and his Arab League supporters -- in fact this story did not cause a stir.

Avigdor Lieberman is not a politician we admire but he is not guilty of capital crimes and it is hypocritical for the world to condemn him and his policies while remaining silent about the Arab League siding with a real criminal. Mr. Lieberman's policies should be analyzed and can be criticized but this should be done in a respectful and credible manner.

We do not subscribe to the core policy of Lieberman's Palestinian policy. For years, Lieberman has campaigned for reducing the Israeli Arab population by ceding parts of Israel that house Israeli Arabs in exchange for some Palestinians lands. This policy actually calls for the establishment of a Palestinian State. It is his version of the two-state construct.

Lieberman's pronouncements yesterday do not differ in any substantial way from the Annapolis framework. If Tzipi Livni had delivered the same message as Lieberman there would probably have been a discussion of its message rather than the fierce dismissive reaction we experienced.

Along with the preconceived notion that Lieberman is evil the reaction to his speech included the bizarre notion that there should be no criticism of the poorly conceived Annapolis process. Annapolis is given more credibility than the Ten Commandments.

Therefore, let us remind ourselves of the origins of Annapolis. Annapolis was the "brainchild" of Condoleeza Rice in the last year of the Bush Administration. It is a very recent policy idea that was roundly questioned when it was unveiled in Annapolis, Maryland. Many of the  commentators who are criticizing Lieberman also questioned Annapolis. Many critics questioned the viability of a policy that was based on the unrealistic idea that the Palestinian Authority represented the Palestinian people, especially when they clearly did not control at least half the population.

The policy of Annapolis is not sacrosanct and should be replaced. It is unfortunate that a target like Lieberman is the one who started the debate over Annapolis.