nimer sultany published an article in electronic intifada this week that lays out, in a lucid fashion, just why all this furor over avigdor liberman is not warranted as his politics are particularly unusual in israel’s terrorist society:
Second, in the negotiations that followed elections day there was a wide range of agreement not only between the Likud of Benjamin Netanyahu and Lieberman, but also the Kadima party of current Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Lieberman. Both sides were trying to convince him to join their own coalition. Needless to say, both Lieberman and Kadima emerged in the last decade as an offspring of the Likud.
Third, Ehud Barak of the Labor party rejected before the elections some of his senior party members’ demand to promise not to join a coalition that would include Lieberman. Even worse, Barak claimed that Lieberman talks the talk but does not walk the walk as he never “shot anyone” thereby implying that he himself is the tough guy since he did actually kill Arabs in his past.
Fourth, Lieberman’s central idea of land swap or population swap that would include Palestinian citizens of Israel and his view of this minority as a demographic and strategic threat to the self-proclaimed Jewish state are actually not controversial among the major parties and elites in Israel. The question of Palestinian citizenship in a Jewish state started long before Lieberman emerged on the scene and used incitement against the Palestinian citizens to gain more votes. Indeed, many prominent Israeli academics and politicians have expressed support of these ideas including Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, Elie Yishai of the Shas party, Ephraim Sneh of Labor, journalist Dan Margalit and historian Benny Morris. To give one example, Ehud Barak said in his June 2002 interview with Benny Morris in The New York Review of Books that the Arab citizens will serve as the “spear point” of the Palestinian struggle, and that this would require changes in the rules of the “democratic game” to guarantee the “Jewishness” of the state. He also expressed support for a land swap that would include large Arab concentrations inside Israel because it makes “demographic sense.”
To give another example, on 23 January 2002 Livni urged members of the Knesset to reject an “equal protection clause” according to which equality is the right of every citizen in the state regardless of his or her nationality or religion or views. Indeed, the proposed bill was rejected and formal equality remains outside the Israeli book of laws. She also supported “settlement and allocation of land for Jews only” bills in the Knesset. Finally, she repeatedly argued that Israel will never be the national home for its Palestinian citizens, and if they have a collective aspiration they should look for it somewhere else.
Fifth, this is not the first time that Lieberman has become a cabinet minister in Israel. In fact he served as the minister of national infrastructure (2001-02), minister of transportation (2003-04), and then more recently as the minister for strategic affairs (2006-08).
Sixth, Lieberman is not the first or only outspoken proponent of expulsion of the Palestinians to serve in the government. In fact, Rehavam Ze’evi of the racist Moledet party was a minister without portfolio (1991-92), and then again as a minister of tourism (2001) in the Sharon government until he was assassinated by Palestinians, only to be replaced by Benjamin Elon of the same party and with the same views. Ze’evi was more principled in this issue than Lieberman. Notable in this context is that the Israeli legislator enacted a law to commemorate Ze’evi’s “legacy” after his assassination.
al jazeera has had a couple of reports today about ehud barak joining lieberman and netanyahu’s new government in the israeli terrorist state. oddly, regardless of the journalist reporting on the story, barak and his labor party are considered “left of center” or as somehow inherently, ideologically different. akiva eldar has an op ed in ha’aretz today that offers a mild version of how these parties and their leaders are two sides of the same coin:
“It is completely natural for Barak to want to join the Bibi-Lieberman government,” said Pines-Paz, the only MK who left Ehud Olmert’s government after Yisrael Beiteinu’s Avigdor Lieberman joined it. “He doesn’t have a problem with their ideology. Perhaps you can remind me how many outposts Barak has evacuated so far and how exactly he abided by the Talia Sasson report [on settlement construction]?” (Last week marked four years since the government’s decision to appoint a ministerial committee to recommend steps to implement the report within 90 days.)
If his party colleagues, including Labor Secretary-General Eitan Cabel and Pines-Paz, find fault with their leader’s reliability, how can foreigners be expected to believe the defense minister? If he doesn’t have a qualms about misleading his political partners , why should he have a problem spreading fabrications about the Palestinian (no) partners?
Barak’s deceptive conduct casts a different light on the Rashomon-like reports surrounding his negotiations, while prime minister, with the Syrians and the Palestinians. Why should we prefer Barak’s version, according to which he dragged Yasser Arafat to Camp David “in order to reveal his true face,” over the version of three senior intelligence officials who said they had warned Barak that there was no chance Arafat would be satisfied with his “generous offer”? And why should we believe Barak that Hafez Assad should be blamed for the failure of the negotiations with Syria and cast doubts on the accounts of the three American mediators, who allege that Barak was the one who got cold feet?
an al jazeera report by ayman mohyeldin shows that this government already made an agreement to build 3,000 new colonies in palestine:
and yet al jazeera reports that netanyahu is a partner for “peace”:
“This means I will negotiate with the Palestinian Authority for peace,” he said.
“I think that the Palestinians should understand that they have in our government a partner for peace, for security and for rapid economic development of the Palestinian economy.”
here is the agreement discussed in the al jazeera clip above about the agreement signed allowing for the expansion of israeli terrorists’ colonies in palestine:
A source close to the negotiations between the pair told Army Radio that the plan had been agreed upon even though it did not appear in the official document detailing the coalition deal between Yisrael Beiteinu and Netanyahu’s Likud.
The plan is for the West Bank settlement of Ma’aleh Adumim to build 3000 new housing units on the territory, which stretches between it and Jerusalem, the source was quoted as saying.
Construction in the area is particularly sensitive because it would create contiguity between the settlement and the capital, which in turn would prevent Palestinian construction between East Jerusalem and Ramallah.
yes, this is a man of “peace” in the zionist entity where everything is upside down and backwards. you see, when they say “peace,” what they really mean is stealing more land, murdering more palestinians, building more colonies.
and yet saeb erekat said today that he still supports this bantustan two-state khara:
here is what erekat is actually working for with his wholesale abandonment of the liberation of palestine for a ever-decreasing enclave of bantustans that he somehow in his deluded world thinks is a “state.” this is from the satirical paper the onion:
but it is not just the land theft and the colonies that makes barak the same as the others. they are all terrorists. those war crimes we witnessed in gaza, which are continuing to be revealed by westerners now (because, of course, unless the west comes in and tells us these are war crimes it doesn’t count) were perpetrated by barak. even human rights watch–at the risk of losing its zionist donors–released a strong report today documenting war crimes committed by barak & co. rory mccarthy had this to say about it in the guardian:
In a 71-page report, the rights group said the repeated use of air-burst white phosphorus artillery shells in populated areas of Gaza was not incidental or accidental, but revealed “a pattern or policy of conduct”.
It said the Israeli military used white phosphorus in a “deliberate or reckless” way. The report says:
• Israel was aware of the dangers of white phosphorus.
• It chose not to use alternative and less dangerous smoke shells.
• In one case, Israel even ignored repeated warnings from UN staff before hitting the main UN compound in Gaza with white phosphorus shells on 15 January.
you can download the report at the human rights watch website by clicking on this link.
and for those of you who did not see the guardian report on war crimes committed by israeli terrorists (i wrote about this in a post below), here is the film, which is finally on youtube:
this is the work not only of the israeli terrorist leadership who carried out these war crimes or who build these colonies. this is the work of all israeli terrorist society, all of whom are terrorists. never forget that 94% of that population, who live on stolen land, supported these war crimes 100%.
body on the line 