Over the weekend Avigdor Lieberman said that the Golan Heights was part of Israel because the Sykes-Picot treaty (English-French-Russian agreement 1916) drawing a boundary line west of the Golan Heights was "imperialist" and "arbitrary." Here is Yossi Gurvitz at 972, taking "Homo Sovieticus" and "doorman" Lieberman down. Here again we see an Israeli challenging the foundational myths of Israel. Breathtaking:
if Liberman finds the Sykes-Picot Agreement to be invalid because of its inherent imperialism, what can he possibly say about documents such as the Balfour Declaration and the San Remo decision? These are two documents which the delusional right likes to return to, in order to skip the annoying problem of the UN’s decision to create Israel – that it created two countries, Arab and Jewish. It turns out (thanks again to Didi) that the foreign ministry also quotes them with approval. Is there a more imperialistic move than granting a region, to which you have no rights, to a third group while blithely ignoring the wishes of the native residents?
Thirdly, and most important, questioning the Middle East borders, as set after the First World War – much influenced by the Sykes-Picot Agreement – means reopening all its borders. Provided that Sykes was deeply involved in setting the borders of Mandatory Palestine, it also means questioning Israel’s borders. Actually, given that the dreadful imperialist Sykes (and he was a dreadful imperialist, also an anti-Semite who supported Zionism because he bought the Zionist bluff which, never explicitly stated but always hinted, claimed to represent “world Jewry”, i.e. the Elders of Zion) was the most important British official to press for the Balfour Declaration, it is also questioning Israel’s existence in itself.
After all, if Syria has any historical meanings, it includes many bits of Mandatory Palestine, not just the Golan Heights. This, by the way, was mentioned by Arabs and Arabists over 90 years ago. A re-opening of the post-WWI borders question – which is precisely what Liberman’s move means; that Israel can consider those agreements something it can change at its will – is a recipe for opening the gates of Hell. After all, Israel, too, is the child of an imperialist conspiracy. There’s no reason it would have any benefit over its neighbors in this regard.
In a government which takes itself seriously, a foreign minister wouldn’t be uttering such nonsense about the documents which, in no small degree, are also its country’s founding documents. He certainly would not have done so without a serious debate by the government. Then again, in a government which takes itself seriously, Liberman would not be holding any office, except perhaps that of the doorman. Netanyahu heard Liberman and kept silent, as usual; once more he preferred to sacrifice Israel’s interest, the shreds of its name as not-entirely-out-of-its-mind country, on the altar of his coalition.