The problem isn’t Lieberman (c’ted)

by on April 2, 2009 4

Jack Ross writes:
There's a problem neither you or any of the reporters pointed out - it's Netanyahu, not Lieberman, who's more intractably opposed to a two state solution.  It is precisely Lieberman's support for a Greece-Turkey style population transfer which has made him tolerable to the pro-Israel "left" represented by The Forward and the URJ leadership in that it is ostensible support for a two state solution, whereas it is Netanyahu who has, in not so many words, come out in favor of a formalized apartheid.  What that transcript exposes more then anything else is the shallowness with which Lieberman has become a scapegoat for so many liberals, perhaps along with the establishment generally, for the emerging crisis between America and Israel.

Posted in Israel Lobby, Israel/Palestine, Israeli Government, One state/Two states

{ 4 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Jaffr says:
    April 2, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    What a laugh that Lieberman says he supports the ROADMAP as a ratified and binding agreement!

    Israel under Sharon did supposedly "accept" the Roadmap framework — and then, as usual, proceeded to violate every provision.

    Phase I included a commitment to dismantle settlement outsposts "illegal" under even Israeli law and to halt ALL settlement activity, including specifically "natural growth." There were also numerous requirements for confidence building such as lifting limits on Palestinian movement, refraining from land confiscations and home demolitions, etc., etc. None, none of these stipulations were met.

    This is the whole history of modern Zionism: agree to whatever is tactically necessary. . . and then proceed to do whatever it can by force.

    Lieberman is all for this kind of roadmap — Netanyahu doesn't even give a shit for the figleaf.

  2. Father Ted says:
    April 2, 2009 at 9:46 pm

    I think it's a misnomer to say that Lieberman supports a two state solution in any form, even "ostensibly". I think what he specifically says is that Arab areas of Israel should be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, not that they should be part of an independent sovereign state of Palestine. If you remove the Arab areas of Israel to the Palestinian Authority, but don't then transform the areas under the PA into a separate state, then all you are really doing is reducing the Arabs of Israel from being full – if not equal – citizens of Israel, to the same status as the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories i.e. non-citizens of an ersatz non-state (the PA). In practice, it plays out on the ground as Israel keeping effective control over all the land, but removing Israeli Arabs from the electorate by saying they can vote for a powerless non-sovereign government in the PA, and that can be their "self-determination".

  3. Richard Witty says:
    April 2, 2009 at 10:12 pm

    They're both dangerous. Leiberman is more overt. Netanyahu is more stealth.

  4. Rowan says:
    April 2, 2009 at 11:33 pm

    Witty, you are more dangerous than either, if slime is anything to be frightened of.

Leave a Reply