Avigdor Lieberman: Right Message Wrong Messenger?
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.
Just today I talked to a Chicago area rabbi about Lieberman's proposal. Like most (liberal) rabbis in Chicago, he villified Lieberman for allegedly calling for the "transfer of Arabs out of Israel." I quickly corrected him, saying that Lieberman's proposal is to transfer Arab dominated territories to the PA, thereby allowing the Arabs to stay in their current homes. This is a far more humane solution than the mass evictions of Jewish West Bank residents proposed by the Olmert/Livni government. He replied with the commonly held belief that most West Bank settlers are religious zealots, implying that they deserve to be evicted from their homes. I replied that most West Bank residents are not particularly religious. Furthermore, in regards to those West Bank residents that are religious, if we punish the entire Haredi community for the rare cases of alleged (and often unconfirmed) acts of vandalism by the few, then our discrimination is as bad as any policies of czarist Russia. Hearing my historical comparisons, the rabbi was speachless. He had no response to the obvious hypocrisy of his position. So he fell back on the "pragmatism" argument, i.e. "now is not the time for principals, now is the time to be pragmatic." I replied "Is it pragmatic to not only ignore Arab anti-semitism, but to also adopt it as a part of our own policies? Can we sink any further?" The rabbi finally agreed with me. How could he in good conscience disagree? As a parting thought, I reminded him that the per-capita income of the West Bank Palestinians was at an all-time high during the first Netanyahu administration. In other words, when Israeli policies emphasize security and stability, it not only benefits Jews, it also benefits Arabs. The rabbi smiled and agreed once again.
Only because of this treacherous entry I unsubscribe from any of your newsletters.
When will you quit trying to please the nations and start worrying about the sake of Israel!?
It does not matter who spoke up about Annapolis. The so-called peace process is a sham in its entirety for the following reasons: 1. The Palestinian leadership is in total disarray. None of the various branches of the Palestinian Liberation Organization represents the entire Palestinian people. 2. The PLO charter still contains inflammatory language regarding Israel: it does not acknowledge the Jewish State of Israel. 3. Palestinian terrorism is still occurring against the Israeli military as well as the Israeli citizenry both on Israel's borders and within Israel. 4. The Palestinian Authority does not have an authorized, legitimate president. 5. Hamas still engages in active bombing of southern Israel. 6. Even after Operation Cast Lead, Hamas still calls or the eradication of the State of Israel: it is still smuggling in missiles, rockets, mortars, in addition to any other type of lethal weapons possible to obtain. 7. Palestinian children are still being taught to hate Jews and Israel. 8. The Palestinian media is still vitriolic, acerbic, and odious in its incessant efforts to stir up violence against Israeli citizens.
If there is any chance for peace in the next twenty-five years, Palestinians will have to stop the terrorism against Israel and its citizens, preach peace in their school curricula and media, forget about East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, forget about the allowance of Palestinian refugees to resettle in Israel, and change their charter once and for all to recognize the Jewish State of Israel as a sovereign nation among the nations of the world.
One more postulation: If Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert were still in office, Israel would be sold out as a country, a nation, and a people: most if not all of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights would be unilaterally capitulated and forfeited to Israel's enemies. The world would no longer contain a viable Israel. Jews the world over would all be living in the Diaspora. Anti-Semitism would be rampart throughout the four corners of the world.
I wish my fellow Jews a peaceful, happy, safe, kosher Pesach; my fellow Christians, a peaceful, introspective Easter; and my fellow Muslims, the gift of peace.