Zakaria is a good critical thinker–so I rarely take issue with anything he says.

However, he should (and I believe he does) realize that the reason this issue is even on the table is because Israel's geopolitical reality is different from any other liberal democracy.

The only way to make a substantive comparison is to put another liberal democracy in the same predicament and take notes. Which country wants to volunteer? :-)

Italy: Minister says govt must expel immigrants who fail to integrate

I personally think this would be strategically wise, and wonder if the US is exercising any "diplomacy" in an effort to influence the direction this goes. If so, this could be an early strong indicator of a new realistic and activist or engaged approach by the Obama Administration. Assuming this is so – that George Mitchell/Rahm Emanuel/David Axelrod/Clinton/Obama, have been working their levers of power to influence the factions of Likud and Kadima to bring them together, to exclude Lieberman, what would this look like? Stories for underemployed journalists to pursue? It seems to me that strong US reaction, in the media broadly defined, demonstrating clear fault-lines along the US-Israeli alliance over issues of racism, Apartheid, oppression, could have an effect, could be important at this crucial juncture. This blog has certainly done its part. But is there more? Perhaps we should write our Congress persons and Senators, particularly the many Jewish ones, and make clear that we do not want to send aid to Israel if Avigdor Lieberman and his racist policies are incorporated into the Israeli government. My own experience writing my own elected officials is that the Jewish Congressional leadership are more sensitive to these issues, are more nuanced in their statements in response, more evolving in the things they say, and would be more likely to see the potential problems that could come from "Loose Cannon" Lieberman speaking for our "client" government. Now is the time make noise!

How about the former Weimar Republic of Gemany?

Lets hope it's a case of whistling past the graveyard. . .

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304846734&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The prime minister-designate spoke ahead of a meeting with visiting US Senator Joe Lieberman, who said a Netanyahu-led government would enjoy good relations with Washington.

"Our enemies, unfortunately, are as common as the values and the interests that have united us for all these years," Lieberman told reporters. "I have no doubt that with Netanyahu's government here we will have good and positive relations with the Obama administration in Washington and with members of Congress, and I look forward to playing my part in contributing to that."

Lieberman also met with Israel Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman. The US senator said that "based on his success in the elections," it was vital to become familiar with Israel Beiteinu's head.

Of course, that's the same dilemma which faced all European colonial projects. European political control was incompatible with local democracy; suppression of local democracy was incompatible with liberal democratic values at home. The circle couldn't be squared. As a result, the British left India and Palestine; the European powers decamped from Africa; even South Africa, whose European settlers had 'gone native' and couldn't return, adopted one-person/one-vote democracy.

Israel cannot square the colonial circle either. Starting a colonial project in the post WW II era, while the rest of planet was decolonizing, was an epic strategic blunder. Zionist ideology and unrealistic hopes blinded Jewish immigrants to the factual reality that a 'Jewish state' was an extremely long-shot gamble.

'Equal rights for all Israeli citizens' are of course the correct policy. South Africa's democratization provides some guideposts — for instance, a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to air the absues of the past. Also, statutes to protect minority rights, including the rights of a future Jewish minority.

Further desperate attempts to defend the indefensible Israeli status quo will be an example of the 'sunk cost fallacy' — continuing to throw good money after bad, rather than accept the inevitability of change in the wake of a serious error in judgment. The main objective of Americans should be to restrain the already insolvent U.S. government from escalating its subsidy of the Israeli status quo.

If I were a Palestinian legislator, I would introduce in the Knesset a bill styled the 'Civil Rights Act of 2009,' directly referencing the eponymous U.S. act of 1964 — and then challenge Obama to support the civil rights of Israel's second-class citizens. Is Obama a black man, or an Oreo? We shall see.

… as one can see, actual democracies don't disenfranchise parts of the population just because they are "troublesome". Indeed, as anyone who has actually understood what a democracy is, the very idea is anti-democratic.