During the recent Israeli election campaign Avigdor Lieberman, representing Yisrael Beitenu (Israel Our Home) presented himself as a far-right nationalist who had made some inflammatory and what could be perceived as racist remarks about Palestinians and Arab Israelis. He also managed to upset Egypt, one of only two neighbouring states that Israel has signed a peace treaty and with whom it has an important relationship with reagrd mutual security issues.
Hi smost controversial slogan was “No loyalty, no citizenship” which called for all Israel citizens, including Arabs, to swear an oath of allegiance. In itself this may seem unexceptional but if you consider that Basques donlt have to do this in Spain or Republicans in Northern Ireland or Kurds in Turkey, such a policy seemed designed to be a step toward another objective:
What we state unequivocally is that we are completely opposed to what has been and still is the guiding principle of Israel’s foreign policy: ‘land for peace’ … There is either ‘peace for peace’ or the exchange of territory and populations.
The “exchange” he refers to is his idea of a Pakistan/India type transfer of all Israeli Arabs to a future Palestine and, presumably all Jews within the agreed border to return to Israel. If you analyse this it makes no reference about Israeli settlements and it undermines Israel’s claim that it is not an apartheid state and is not racist.
I do not subscribe to a transfer of populations and no Palestinian government would ever do so and a large number of Israelis would oppose it. Such an exchange would only lead to a considerable cultural loss to Israel. It sounds totally impracticable.
However, land-for-peace IS off the table for Lieberman in this speech. But Lieberman is part of a broad coalition. But we’ll return to land-for-peace later.
Time and time again our leaders go to Egypt to meet Mubarak and he has never agreed to make an official visit here as president. If he wants to talk to us, he should come here. If he doesn’t want to come here, he can go to hell.
Great. So let’s make Lieberman Foreign Minister!
In 2006 he said this to an Arab member of the Knesset who is well-known for his support of the Palestinian cause:
The fate of the collaborators in the Knesset will be identical to that of those who collaborated with the Nazis. Collaborators, as well as criminals, were executed after the Nuremberg trials at the end of the World War Two. I hope that will be the fate of collaborators in this house.
Isn’t it interesting that the Arab MK can openly express his views, make trips abroad to meet enemies of the state and not be imprisoned or worse. He’s a member of parliament! How would that work in Iran if a Jewish member of parliament expressed his Zionist views (or anyone else for that matter). One can’t imagine a single Arab state that would tolerate this sort of opposition.
On the other hand such language from Lieberman would not be tolerated in most democracies. Even if said in the heat of the moment, it is totally unacceptable.
I think Lieberman, in his new role a a coalition member is now finding a more moderate voice. But it’s still pretty strident at times.
Let’s now look at what Lieberman said on April 1st when taking office: (translation from Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website).
He began describing the realities of a new world order where there are “semi-states”:
there are countries that are semi-states. It is hard to call a country like Somalia a state in the full sense of the word and the same holds true for the various autonomies in Eastern Europe, in the Balkans and here as well. It is even hard to call a country like Iraq a state in the full sense of the word. And even worse, there are now international players that are irrational, like the Al Qaeda organization. And we can certainly also ask if the leader of a strong and important country like Iran is a rational player.
In my view, we must explain to the world that the priorities of the international community must change, and that all the previous benchmarks – the Warsaw Pact, the NATO Alliance, socialist countries, capitalist countries – have changed. There is a world order that the countries of the free world are trying to preserve, and there are forces, or countries or extremist entities that are trying to violate it.
He sees the threat to world order not coming fro Israel-Palestine but from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq. He stresses regional stability and especially singles out Egypt as an important partner to Israel. So this is already a softening in an attempt too make up for hos remarks about Mubarak: “I would be happy to visit Egypt and to host Egyptian leaders here, including the Egyptian Foreign Minister”. In fact, this is not going to happen just yet; Ha’aretz reports “Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said on Thursday that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman would not accompany Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on an upcoming visit to Egypt.” Maybe a tad too early for a Mubarak-Lieberman rapprochement. An apology from Lieberman might help.
He goes on to describe the efforts of the two previous administrations and the meaning of “peace”:
I think that we have been disparaging many concepts, and we have shown the greatest disdain of all for the word “peace.” The fact that we say the word “peace” twenty times a day will not bring peace any closer. There have been two governments here that took far-reaching measures: the Sharon government and the Olmert government. They took dramatic steps and made far-reaching proposals. We saw the Disengagement and the Annapolis Conference.
Yisrael Beiteinu was not then part of the coalition, Avigdor Liberman was not the foreign minister and, even if we had wanted to, we would have been unable to prevent peace. But none of these far-reaching measures have brought peace. To the contrary. We have seen that, after all the gestures that we made, after all the dramatic steps we took and all the far-reaching proposals we presented, in the past few years this country has gone through the Second War in Lebanon and Operation Cast Lead – and not because we chose to. I have not seen peace here. It is precisely when we made all the concessions that I saw the Durban Conference, I saw two countries in the Arab world suddenly sever relations, recalling their ambassadors – Mauritania and Qatar. Qatar suddenly became extremist.
Then the old Lieberman slips out using a phrase which lends itself to misinterpretation:
We are also losing ground every day in public opinion. Does anyone think that concessions and constantly saying “I am prepared to concede,” and using the word “peace” will lead to anything? No, that will just invite pressure, and more and more wars. “Si vis pacem, para bellum” – if you want peace, prepare for war; be strong.
It is strange he begins by admitting Israel is losing the media war and then puts a very big foot in an equally big mouth with the the Latin quote.
But now we come to Liberman’s clever strategy:
We definitely want peace, but the other side also bears responsibility. We have proven our desire for peace more than any other country in the world. No country has made concessions the way Israel has. Since 1977, we have given up areas of land three times the size of the State of Israel. So we have proven the point.
The Oslo process began in 1993. Sixteen years have passed since then, and I do not see that we are any closer to a permanent settlement. There is one document that binds us and it is not the Annapolis Conference. That has no validity. When we drafted the basic government policy guidelines, we certainly stated that we would honor all the agreements and all the undertakings of previous governments. The continuity of government is respected in Israel. I voted against the Road Map, but that was the only document approved by the Cabinet and by the Security Council – I believe it was Resolution 1505. It is a binding resolution and it binds this government as well.
The Israeli government never approved Annapolis, neither the Cabinet nor the Knesset, so anyone who wants to amuse himself can continue to do so. I have seen all the proposals made so generously by Ehud Olmert, but I have not seen any results.
So we will therefore act exactly according to the Road Map, including the Tenet document and the Zinni document. I will never agree to our waiving all the clauses – I believe there are 48 of them – and going directly to the last clause, negotiations on a permanent settlement. No. These concessions do not achieve anything. We will adhere to it to the letter, exactly as written. Clauses one, two, three, four – dismantling terrorist organizations, establishing an effective government, making a profound constitutional change in the Palestinian Authority. We will proceed exactly according to the clauses. We are also obligated to implement what is required of us in each clause, but so is the other side. They must implement the document in full, including – as I said – the Zinni document and the Tenet document. I am not so sure that the Palestinian Authority or even we – in those circles that espouse peace so much – are aware of the existence of the Tenet and Zinni documents.
This is where the world’s media said “aha!” – see, he doesn’t want to observe the peace accords, he will renege on Israel’s previous commitments. He is right: Annapolis did not oblige either side to anything because no agreement was reached and, therefore, Israel has no obligations under Annapolis. “Lieberman does not want a two-state solution” the media opined. But what was signed was a mutual agreement to negotiate:
We agreed to immediately launch good faith, bilateral negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty resolving all outstanding issues, including core issues, without exception,” and that, “The final peace settlement will establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people.
Thus a two-state solution was agreed for the first time by both sides as an end goal to negotiations.
But looked what happened in the Arab world and in Iran. Both Hamas and Iran said the conference should be boycotted and Hamas even held a demonstration in Gaza against it four days before the conference began. Even in the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority stronghold, their were demonstrations against the conference which were brutally broken up by Fatah members. Ahmadinejad in Iran, meanwhile, also denounced it as “”A political show for the media which is in Israel’s interest”” (as reported by yNetNews at the time. It appears Ahmadinjad was very worried that there might actually be a settlement. Peace is not in his interests because it means Israel had not been wiped off the map”.
But in Israel too, when it was realised that Olmert had put East Jerusalem on the negotiating table, there were many protests, mainly by right-wing religious groups.
Before the conference Mahmoud Abbas of the P.A. had said that the ALL the West Bank and Gaza forming a Palestinian state would be the only acceptable solution. This sounds like a pre-condition to me, just the sort of pre-condition he accused Binyamin Netanyahu of stipulating when he said that the P.A. must recognise Israel as a Jewish State (and later appeared to back track on this to the point where we now don;t know whether he does or he doesn’t want this pre-condition). Of course, Abbas has his own constituency and any pre-condition that actually recognises a Jewish State is political dynamite and potentially fatal. Yet the P.A. have said in the past that they DO recognise Israel. So it’s clearly the “Jewish” bit they have a problem with.
So what happened next? The joint statement was actually a confirmation of the road-map which was issued 30th April 2003 by the “Quartet”. So the whole Annapolis Conference was little more than a belated Bush effort to get things moving again.
So back to Lieberman who recognises this:
The Israeli government never approved Annapolis, neither the Cabinet nor the Knesset, so anyone who wants to amuse himself can continue to do so. I have seen all the proposals made so generously by Ehud Olmert, but I have not seen any results.
So we will therefore act exactly according to the Road Map, including the Tenet document and the Zinni document. …
We will adhere to it to the letter, exactly as written. Clauses one, two, three, four – dismantling terrorist organizations, establishing an effective government, making a profound constitutional change in the Palestinian Authority. We will proceed exactly according to the clauses. We are also obligated to implement what is required of us in each clause, but so is the other side.
So what Lieberman is saying is that Annapolis reconfirmed the road-map to a two-state solution. But the very first steps have not been carried out by the Palestinian side because terror still exists. How can peace be reached with half of Palestine whilst the other half attacks from Gaza on a daily basis.
Lieberman is saying “enough of concessions” let’s move forward on the basis of the road-map. He is cutting to the chase and saying we have map, so let’s use it. He is challenging the Palestinians to move forward on this basis.
Liberman has his unsavoury side but he also makes a lot of sense. Israel must can not move forward on the road-map until its own security is assured and that may well mean that as long as Hamas rules Gaza very little will happen.