Arab Ritualistic Anti-Semitism and Defense Minister Lieberman

Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman went to the Western Wall to proffer thanks and, perhaps, ask for guidance.

Here is how an Arab news agency reported the event:

In a provocative move, the War minister in the Israeli government, Avigdor Lieberman, on Tuesday morning, broke into the courtyards of Al-Aqsa mosque amid tight security of the occupying forces, and performed Talmudic rituals in what is called the Wailing Wall (the western wall of Al-Aqsa Mosque).

They even had an accompanying photograph to illustrate his provocative ritualistc act:

However, any simple Google search will reveal that that picture is from November 2013, following his acquittal on charges of fraud and breach of trust in a unanimous ruling by three judges having been accused of promoting a former diplomat who had passed him information about a criminal investigation into Lieberman's business dealings by the authorities in Belarus.

Here is a picture from two days ago:

I can only presume that in order to ramp up the anti-Semitic tone of their reporting, the editors looked for a more "provocative" look, one with him in a tallit, the ritual prayer shawl.

They really are sick, aren't they?  More Pallywood.

Not only is he not in any Al-Aqsa "courtyard", not only is the Western Wall the retaining wall of the Herodian expansion of the Temple Mount precincts but the tallit is not "Talmudic" not is the "ritual" he is performing "Talmudic" but quite Biblical.

But if they mentioned the Bible, they might find out that the city is not "Al-Quds" but Jerusalem and the country is not "Filastin" but Eretz-Yisrael.

As for Lieberman being a "War Minister" rather than a Defense Minister, it depends, I surmise, on what the Arabs want.

^

Not For Three

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman explaining his approach to negotiating with the Pal. Authority:-

The day before yesterday we heard Mahmoud Abbas say during a meeting that if Israel will freeze construction in the settlements for two or three months then the Palestinians will be ready to resume talks. This is very interesting and very strange. When the Israeli government decided on a moratorium as a unilateral gesture a year ago Abbas and the Palestinians rejected it completely. However, now they are exerting pressure for a moratorium that they previously rejected. The Palestinians wasted nine months and only during the final month entered into negotiations, not with a genuine intention to reach an agreement but rather because the U.S. imposed the process on them.


At least for me, it is clear that they are only looking for excuses to avoid meaningful talks that will lead to a comprehensive solution. The Palestinians are overly confident and are assuming that they have the complete support of the international community. This allows them to think that they will gain more directly from the international community than through negotiations with Israel. As a result, we have the right to wonder about the real intentions of Fatah.

We are ready for immediate talks without preconditions. However, there will be no new moratorium in Jerusalem or Judea and Samaria. Not for three months, not for three days and not even for three hours. The international community needs to understand that there is only one country in our region that respects international norms while standing against waves of unceasing daily terror attacks and incitement.

That's fairly clear, no?
 
^

Lieberman "Scoffed"

Seems Avigdor Lieberman sort of blew off the US Ambassador to Israel a while back, on October 25, 2006:-

OUTPOSTS AND SETTLEMENTS

5. (C) The Ambassador emphasized the importance the U.S. attaches to Israeli commitments to President Bush on outposts and settlements. "These are not the main issues (now)," Lieberman responded, expressing his view that the question of outposts and settlements must be considered "together" as part of a final package rather than as a first, one-sided step. Lieberman, who lives in a West Bank settlement, reiterated that Palestinian economic issues are critical, and said that Israeli outposts and settlements provide jobs to Palestinians. He also claimed that Palestinians "like IDF security." The Ambassador underscored that many of the outposts were "illegal" under Israeli law, but Lieberman scoffed that there were only 1,000 illegal houses in the West Bank while there were, he claimed, "100,000 illegal (Arab) houses in the Negev and Galilee." He added that the outposts in the occupied territories were "encouraged -- under the table -- by former PM Sharon" and argued that their removal would provoke internal conflict in Israel without advancing a comprehensive settlement.

^

Denationalization, Citizenship and Disloyalty

Minister Avigdor Lieberman, champion of the "loyalty oath" campaign (which he initiated back in 2004 and made it a part of his concept of the peace negotiations as well in 2009) here in Israel in response to specific Arab instances of possible disloyalty and acts of subversion, did not write this:

Citizenship law, then, must be one tile of our intricate national security mosaic. By citizenship law, I mean the set of legal rules...that prescribe how individuals may become citizens, how they may lose that status, and their access to additional citizenships...The issue of political loyalty — what it means, how it can be measured, and especially the risk that powerful officials might question and manipulate it at the cost of our precious individual liberties — is always fraught. This is a very old issue...In a liberal polity whose paramount values are individual freedom and limited government, citizenship law must not be too intrusive, demanding, or subject to government discretion....Extreme caution is warranted, yet in high-stakes politics is seldom exercised. As we confront the risk of domestic terrorism, we must always keep this countervailing risk to our liberty and communal trust very much in mind.

Nor this:

...An ostensibly easier route for the government is to seek to strip the terrorist of his...citizenship. This denationalization (sometimes called expatriation) would be easier because it is a civil and not a criminal remedy. Hence, the government’s procedural and evidentiary obstacles would be lower, and once denationalized, he could be deported...

And neither this:

We must also continue to cultivate a culture pervaded by patriotism and respect for differences, and maintain and improve a system of legal and political remedies for legitimate grievances...

They were written by Peter H. Schuck, Simeon E. Baldwin Professor Emeritus of Law at Yale University, this past December.

Did you know that the United Kingdom amended its Nationality Act to permit the Secretary of State to revoke the citizenship of naturalized or even of birthright citizens, to be followed by deportation? (page 2853 in this 2007 article)

Think about that.

^

"Palestinian" Violence - Against Jordan in the Shadow of Israel's Avigdor Lieberman

UPI reports:-

Some 250 people were injured in violence after a soccer match in the Jordanian capital of Amman, officials said.  The incident began in the final minutes of a game between the Bedouin-backed al-Feisali team and the Palestinian-based al-Wehdat squad, when fans in the upper decks of the stadium began throwing bottles down into the crowd Friday night, the BBC said.

Why did they throw missiles?
 
Well, here's the Al-Jazeera report:
 


But it is Jamal Halaby, of the Associated Press, who provides us the reality:

...There is a long history of violence between supporters of the two teams, stemming in part from the decades of tension with Jordan's large Palestinian population, which includes an estimated 1.8 million refugees displaced after Israel's 1948 creation and their descendants. Most of Faisali's players and fans are from native Jordanian Bedouin tribes. Most of Wehdat's players and fans are Palestinian.

Although most of Jordan's Palestinians - excluding natives of the Gaza Strip - carry Jordanian passports and enjoy citizenship rights unmatched by other Arab host governments, many of them complain that they are barred from taking up security and army posts or holding other top positions in the Jordanian government.

Native Jordanians feel the Palestinian refugees have no allegiance to the country.

In a match last year between the same teams, Faisali fans chanted slogans deriding the Palestinian origin of King Abdullah II's wife, Queen Rania, and their son Crown Prince Hussein - an episode that even got a mention in one of the U.S. diplomatic memos released by the WikiLeaks website.

No allegiance? Hello, that resonates with Avigdor Lieberman's platform.

^

Quotable Words

"We need to tell the world that there are no 'magic solutions,'" Lieberman said. "We will not get to a permanent agreement in the coming decade, or the one after that. The Palestinians are even unable to reach a stable peace agreement among themselves."

Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman

For The Record: Clinton & Lieberman

Secretary's Remarks: Remarks With Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman
Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:11:28 -0500
Remarks With Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman
Hillary Rodham Clinton

Secretary of State

Washington, DC

June 17, 2009

SECRETARY CLINTON: Good afternoon. It is my pleasure to welcome Foreign Minister Lieberman to the State Department today for his first official visit to Washington in his new role. Minister Lieberman’s visit gave me the opportunity to reaffirm the United States deep, unshakable friendship and bond with Israel. Our commitment to Israel’s security is and will remain a cornerstone of our foreign policy, and I was pleased to have this chance to express that personally to the foreign minister. The United States has no greater ally in the Middle East and no greater friend than Israel.

Because our countries are close friends, we spoke honestly and openly about a range of issues. And we are looking forward to continuing that dialogue in the U.S.-Israel strategic dialogue, which has provided a useful forum for discussion of shared concerns and challenges over recent years. We exchanged views on the Middle East, including Iran, and reiterated the need for Iran’s leaders to comply with obligations to the United Nations Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency to suspend enrichment-related and reprocessing activities. And we look forward to Iran’s response to our offers of engagement.

And of course, we also focused on efforts to bring about a comprehensive peace between Israel and her neighbors in the region. Israel’s right to exist in peace and security is undeniable and non-negotiable. Both Israelis and Palestinians deserve to live in peace and security in two states that will entail both parties fulfilling their obligations under the Roadmap.

Building on the Arab Peace Initiative, Arab states must do their part to support the Palestinian people as they develop the institutions that will sustain their state. And they must recognize Israel’s legitimacy and, in doing so, choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

The United States will never do anything to undermine Israel’s security, and the United States also supports a viable Palestinian state. We do not believe that these two objectives are incompatible. In fact, we believe they are both critical elements of a comprehensive and secure peace.

Minister Lieberman, I hope that you enjoy your first visit to the United States as your country’s foreign minister, and I look forward to continuing our conversation and working with you more on these issues in the future.

[she doesn't mention the "s" word = "settlements"]

FOREIGN MINISTER LIEBERMAN: Madame Secretary, at the outset, I would like to say to you how much the people and the Government of Israel appreciate your consistent support of Israel. We value your friendship greatly. We remember the many contributions you have made personally, even before you became a United States senator from New York. We thank you, Your Excellency, for your longstanding commitment to Israel and to strengthening the American-Israeli special relationship and friendship.

I think that we have had a good discussion today covering a broad spectrum of regional and global issues. We also covered a wide range of important bilateral topics. Madame Secretary, I thank you for your very kind hospitality today, and I look forward to our future friendly dialogue, both in Washington and in Jerusalem. Thank you.

[and neither does he]

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you.

MR. KELLY: Our first question goes to Lachlan Carmichael [AFP].

QUESTION: Yes, Minister --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Here comes the microphone, Lachlan.

QUESTION: Minister Lieberman, first, Ambassador Oren, the new ambassador to Washington, is talking about some interesting proposals on settlements. Could you elaborate on what they might be? And then for Secretary Clinton, does that mean there is some wiggle room to your statement that there should be no such settlement activity?

And finally, for both of you, did you discuss previous President George Bush’s letters, private letters to the Israeli Government? Is that issue over with?

FOREIGN MINISTER LIEBERMAN: Thank you. It’s a long question. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: It’s actually three questions.

FOREIGN MINISTER LIEBERMAN: Three questions, yeah. First of all, we really don’t have any intention to change the demographic balance in Judea and Samaria. But we think that, you know, as – in every place around the world, baby are born (inaudible), people get married, some pass away. And we cannot accept – we cannot accept this vision about absolutely completely freezing call for our settlements. I think that we must keep the natural growth. Prime minister spoke about this in his speech. I think that this position, it’s – this view, this approach, it’s very clear.

And also, we had some understandings with the previous administration and we tried to keep this direction. And we are, of course, ready for immediately direct talks with the Palestinians.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, as President Obama, Senator Mitchell and I have said, we want to see a stop to the settlements. We think that is an important and essential part of pursuing the efforts leading to a comprehensive peace agreement and the creation of a Palestinian state next to a Israeli-Jewish state that is secure in its borders and future. We believe that this process which Senator Mitchell is quarterbacking for us has just begun. There are a number of critical concerns, many of which overlap in their impact and significance, that will be explored in the coming weeks as Senator Mitchell engages more deeply into the specifics as to where the Israelis and the Palestinians are willing to go together.

I think that the whole issue that you’ve raised is one that we’ve expressed our opinion on. And in looking at the history of the Bush Administration, there were no informal or oral enforceable agreements. That has been verified by the official record of the Administration and by the personnel in the positions of responsibility. Our former ambassador Dan Kurtzer has written an op-ed that appeared in the last few days that lays out our position on that.

MR. KELLY: Our next question, Israeli television, Channel 2.

QUESTION: Thank you. Madame Secretary, I’m interested to know, how do you envision any progress, any chance for achievement of progress on the Israeli-Palestinian track when the Israeli prime minister and the foreign minister have put so many conditions on the existing of a Palestinian state, conditions that are all – all-out refused by their Arab neighbors, including the Palestinians? And when you hear that the Israeli – current Israeli Government refuses totally to talk about your demand of freezing the settlement activity, how do you envision a progress on that track?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think if one looks at Israeli history, there have been prime ministers going back to the beginning of Israelis’ statehood that have staked out positions which have changed over time. I personally have known such prime ministers from Labor, Likud and Kadima, who started in one place, but in the process of evaluating what was in the best interests of Israel, and that has to be the primary obligation of any leader of Israel: What is in the best interests of my people and the future of my state?

And these prime ministers have moved to positions that they never would have thought they could have advocated before they started looking hard and thinking hard about what the future should be. But that’s what negotiations are for.

QUESTION: Do you hold out that Netanyahu and Lieberman will follow through (inaudible)?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I leave that to them to decide. I’m just reflecting on history and on people who have been in these positions over the last 30, 40 years. And there has been an evolution in thought. And I thought Prime Minister Netanyahu, in recognizing the aspirations of the Palestinians for a state of their own in his speech on Sunday night, said something that many people were waiting to hear him say.

MR. KELLY: Next question, Charlie Wolfson from CBS News.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, on Iran, and also for the foreign minister. The Iranians have protested U.S. actions through the Swiss ambassador today. Could you bring us up to date on those protests? And there have also been criticisms or reports of criticisms about U.S. interference in Iranian affairs because of the call to Twitter, if you could comment on that.

And for the foreign minister, does the outcome of the Iranian election change Israel’s position in any way, and were your discussions today – did they touch on that, and any actions you asked the Administration to do?

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s four questions for the foreign minister. (Laughter.) We have very creative reporters on both sides here. (Laughter.)

The United States believes passionately and strongly in the basic principle of free expression. We believe that it is a fundamental human right for people to be able to communicate, to express their opinions, to take positions. And this is a view that goes back to the founding of our country, and we stand firmly behind it.

And therefore, we promote the right of free expression. And it is the case that one of the means of expression, the use of Twitter, is a very important one not only to the Iranian people, but now increasingly to people around the world, and most particularly young people. I wouldn’t know a Twitter from a tweeter – (laughter) – but apparently, it is very important. And I think keeping that line of communications open and enabling people to share information, particularly at a time when there was not many other sources of information, is an important expression of the right to speak out and to be able to organize that we value.

FOREIGN MINISTER LIEBERMAN: Thank you. As somebody said before you, we support evolution, not a revolution, and we never interfered in any internal affairs of the different countries. And what it’s important for us, not the personal creation, but the creation of policy. And what we saw during this elections, it was only one point that every candidates were united: its achieving, quote, nuclear capability; and maybe the other point, the hatred to Israel. What it’s important for us, it’s real – not the domestic problems of Iran, but their policy. And we hope that they will change their policy...


Thank you all.

And no, Lieberman did not push her:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton fractured her right elbow during a fall Wednesday, her chief of staff said. Clinton was on her way to the White House when she fell and injured her elbow, chief of staff Cheryl Mills said in a statement released late Wednesday.

Clinton was treated at The George Washington University Hospital, just a few blocks from State Department headquarters, before going home. She will undergo surgery to repair her elbow in the coming week, Mills said.

Is This The Reason for Lieberman's Electoral Success?

This academic study:

Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 53, No. 3, 363-389 (2009)

A New Stress-Based Model of Political Extremism
Personal Exposure to Terrorism, Psychological Distress, and Exclusionist Political Attitudes

Daphna Canetti-Nisim
Department of Psychology University of Maryland, College Park

Eran Halperin
Department of Psychology Stanford University, Stanford

Keren Sharvit
Department of Psychology University of Maryland, Baltimore

Stevan E. Hobfoll
Department of Behavioral Sciences Rush University Medical Center, Chicago

Does exposure to terrorism lead to hostility toward minorities? Drawing on theories from clinical and social psychology, we propose a stress-based model of political extremism in which psychological distress—which is largely overlooked in political scholarship—and threat perceptions mediate the relationship between exposure to terrorism and attitudes toward minorities. To test the model, a representative sample of 469 Israeli Jewish respondents was interviewed on three occasions at six-month intervals. Structural Equation Modeling indicated that exposure to terrorism predicted psychological distress (t1), which predicted perceived threat from Palestinian citizens of Israel (t2), which, in turn, predicted exclusionist attitudes toward Palestinian citizens of Israel (t3). These findings provide solid evidence and a mechanism for the hypothesis that terrorism introduces nondemocratic attitudes threatening minority rights. It suggests that psychological distress plays an important role in political decision making and should be incorporated in models drawing upon political psychology.

Is that clear?

One Is Racist and The Other Is...?

You might recall this caricature published in the New York Post back in February:



As detailed, the cartoon, by Sean Delonas, was partially inspired by an actual chimpanzee attack which occurred at the same time as the signing of the Obama stimulus bill and was considered to possess racial undertones.

The Post editor-in-chief Col Allan claimed the cartoon was a parody of a current news event but Al Sharpton's response was that "it is troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys... Being that the stimulus bill has been the first legislative victory of President Barack Obama (the first African American president) and has become synonymous with him it is not a reach to wonder are they inferring that a monkey wrote the last bill?"

Now, why did I mention that?

This caricature:



(I scanned it as the connection wasn't working. Could Haaretz have disconnected it?)

How would you categorize a caricature that portrays Avigdor Liberman, Israel's Foreign Minister, as a dog on a leash?

If it was publish in an Arab newspaper, in a Neo-Nazi newspaper, we would probably hear of protests but it's in the Haaretz newspaper.

It's kosher, shamefully so.

Welcome/Wilkommen to Israel's Home-grown Nazi Propaganda

A bit strong that headline.

Well, make your own judgment.

Here's the satirical photo that adorns this morning's Maariv Weekend Political Section, page 23:



That's Minister for Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman, if you have difficulty recognizing him.

His portrait is adorned with a red lipstick overlay with the words, in German, meine Liebe!, my love/mydear one, in Gothic script.

It's the creation of one "Lahav", e-mail: bigeyes.express@gmail.com.

Now, I know that the left in Israel considers Lieberman a fascist.

And I know that his name is "Lieberman".

But to draw overt attention, via the German Gothic element, to Nazi reminisces or, perhaps, Hansen homoerotic memories (*) of Berlin? That was his only creative graphic choice?

After all, Lieberman is Moldavian. Lahav couldn't have found a more relevant model? He just had to link up with the German/Nazi association, eh?

But he's alright, that Lahav, he won't have to flee Israel like Hansen needed to flee Germany.

==========================================

(*)

In 1932, Max Hansen satirised Adolf Hitler as homosexual with his song "War'n Sie schon mal in mich verliebt?" (Did you ever fall in love with me?). The Youtube.

Lyrics of War’n sie schon mal in mich verliebt:

Wenn man frech ist schimpfen d’Leut
über diese Dreistigkeit,
auch wenn man bescheiden ist,
man nicht zu beneiden ist,
ich sag alles grad heraus,
da mach ich mir gar nichts d’raus,
wenn ich eine schöne Frau seh
rutscht mir’s raus:

War’n Sie schon mal in mich verliebt,
das ist das schönste was es gibt,
haben Sie schon mal von mir geträumt,
da haben Sie wirklich was versäumt.
Ich bin nicht groß, ich bin nicht klein,
ich paß grad so in alles rein,
ich bin nicht g’scheit, ich bin nicht dumm,
das spricht sich jetzt schon langsam rum,
bei mir haben Sie nichts zu riskier’n,
wie wär’s denn,
woll’n Sie’s nicht einmal mit mir probiern?

Harvard's MESH Mush

Harvard has a site called MESH.

MESH?

Middle East Strategy at Harvard (MESH) is a project of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs. MESH is a community of scholars and practitioners who are interested in the formulation of U.S. strategic options for the Middle East.

In a post by one Robert O. Freedman, Avigdor Lieberman's policy vis a vis Israel's Arabs is discussed, inter alia.

I have a problem with these formulations:

a.

Lieberman’s call for a transfer of territory inhabited by those Israeli Arabs who won’t pledge loyalty to Israel, to a new Palestinian state, in return for Israel maintaining some of the Jewish settlements on the West Bank.

and

b.

Lieberman’s plan to deal with the Israeli Arabs, which some commentators both in Israel and abroad have called “racist,” involves giving the Israeli Arabs a choice. Either they can pledge loyalty to Israel as a Jewish State, or they can leave Israel—with their land. What Lieberman suggests is the transfer of Israeli Arab cities like Umm al-Fahm and towns in the Arab triangle in the Galilee, to a new Palestinian state, in return for Israel’s annexation of Jewish settlement areas on the West Bank such as Maaleh Adumim and Gush Etzion.

and

c.

The outspoken Lieberman says aloud what many Jewish Israelis increasingly believe—that it is impossible for Jews and Arabs to live together in a single state.

All these are poorly written. They are convoluted and thereby misleading.

Lieberman, as far as I know, doesn't support transfer. People will stay where they live. The border will be redrawn. Israel didn't ask the agreement or permission of the Arabs who stayed in Israel in 1949 whether they wanted to be citizens. Does it have to ask their permission to place them in a "Palestine"? In fact, they could maybe even retain Israeli citizenship in some circumstances.

You can read his official presentation here. And in this interview.

I don't agree and you don't have to agree. But a proper presentation

The New Anti-Avigdor Lieberman Poster

A word of necessary explanation on the above play-on-word.

The poster reads: "Czar of Foreign Affairs".

The Hebrew word for Minister is שר which is pronounced Sar.

Silly Fellow

Haim Watzman seems to be too silly a fellow.

Over at The Jerusalem Report on the Jerusalem Post website he has a satire on the idea of a loyalty oath.

So, I just altered the two items American citizens have to deal with and ask, "how difficult can it be?" - when it can be so simple:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the republic of Israel for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.”

or

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the laws of the republic of Israel against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of Israel when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of Israel when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”

It works for that democracy the United States of America, why not for Israel?

The Words of Avigdor Lieberman

From the interview with Avigdor Lieberman:

A Conversation With Avigdor Lieberman

Interview by Lally Weymouth
Sunday, March 1, 2009; B01

...One of the reasons you are so popular is because you called for a loyalty oath for all citizens of Israel. What do you mean by a loyalty oath?

The dividing line for Yisrael Beiteinu is who supports terror and who fights terror. We cannot accept that there are people in Israel that even during the war [in Gaza] openly supported Hamas...We don't have a proposal to kick people out of the country. But I think the country must demand from the citizens real responsibility. It's a crazy thing in Israel that a minister doesn't agree to our anthem. I can't imagine it.

Do you agree with President Bush that there should be a two-state solution?

It was a big dispute between Prime Minister [Ariel] Sharon and me before disengagement [in 2005]. I said you go to establish a Palestinian state without even one Jew, we will become a binational state with more than twenty per cent minority. It won't work. . . . It is really a state and a half for the Palestinians and a half-state for the Israelis. . . .

Our proposal was exchanging territory and population, exactly like the Cyprus model.

You would take the territory where the Jews live in settlements on the West Bank and Israeli Arabs live and swap them?

Of course. Here is a picture of my settlement behind you, Nokdim, in the Judean Desert. I even agree to vacate my settlement if there really will be a two-state solution. What does the leader of the Israeli Arabs say? They're not interested in any Palestinian state. Even the Palestinians aren't interested in a Palestinian state.

You think they want all of Israel?

They want one country from the Jordan River to the sea. [Defense Minister Ehud] Barak gave a very crazy proposal to go back to the 1967 borders. [Yasir] Arafat said no. Also, Sharon gave up all of the Gaza Strip. And at [the] Annapolis [peace conference in 2007], a left-wing government gave very strange and crazy proposals. Even so, the Palestinians didn't accept. Prime Minister [Ehud] Olmert tried to jump from the first stage [of the roadmap] to the final stage. It didn't work, it's impossible.

Would you give up the Golan Heights to make a deal with Syria?

I don't see why we must give up the Golan Heights. Damascus is the center of world terror. All these organizations, Jihad and Hamas, their headquarters are in Damascus. Syria supports Hezbollah.

But there are people in your military who argue that if Israel could make a deal with Syria, perhaps you could split them off from Iran.

No, we cannot split them off. Even [Syrian] President Bashar al-Assad says that even if he receives the Golan Heights, he will continue his ties with Iran. People don't want to see the truth.

So is your next ambition to become prime minister?

No, my personal ambition is to realize all our ideas. Yisrael Beiteinu is a party that puts on the table all the problems that people are afraid to speak about.

But people in the United States think you are a racist. What do you say to those people?

I think they don't understand our reality. We say the left wing in Israel and the United States is in shock that we were so successful.

Allegiance? It's Already Part of the Law of the Land

MK Avigdor Lieberman (for whom I did not vote) has been the object of a political/media campaign to label him as a fascist.

Why?

Because his campaign slogan was "without allegiance, no citzenship".




Now, whether or not you feel comfortable with that type of rhetoric or with Lieberman as a leader, what I found amazing is that no one pointed out that all Lieberman was relating to was the law of the land.

The law?

Yes.

The one passed by the Knesset on April 1, 1952) and amended on March 3, 1958, July 8, 1958 and May 17, 1971 meaning that it wasn't a secreted away piece of obtuse legislation.

NATIONALITY LAW, 5712-1952*

PART ONE: ACQUISITION OF NATIONALITY

Preliminary

There shall be no Israel nationality save under this Law...

PART TWO: LOSS OF NATIONALITY

Revocation of Naturalisation.

11.
(a) Where a person, having acquired Israeli nationality by naturalisation -
(1) has done so on the basis of false particulars; or
(2) has been abroad for seven consecutive years and has no effective connection with Israel, and has failed to prove that his effective connection with Israel was severed otherwise than by his own volition; or
(3) has committed an act of disloyalty towards the State of Israel, a District Court may, upon the application of the Minister of the Interior, revoke such person's naturalisation.

The concept of disavowing citizenship exists. Now we just have quibble about to whom it applies or doesn't and what an act of disloyalty is.

So, since we do have a mechanism (actually quite undefined and when I tried to work on it as Parliamentary Aide to MK Geula Cohen I got nowhere fast), Lieberman was simply engaged in working with the law of the land.

Can you, though, imagine us here trying to get schoolchildren do something fascist like pledging allegaince to the flag every morning at the beginning of classes?

---------------

*
Passed by the Knesset on the 6th Nisan, 5712 (Ist April, 1952). and published in Sefer Ha-Chukkim No. 95 of the 13th Nisan, 5712 (8th April, 1952), P. 146; the Bill was published in Hatza'ot Chok No. 93 of the 22nd Cheshvan, 5712 (21st November, 1951), p. 22.

Not That Simple

I found this quotation in the NYTimes' coverage of Avigdor Lieberman:

“I am afraid of this guy, and I dislike him,” said Shmuel Sandler, dean of social sciences at Bar Ilan University, an institution that emphasizes Jewish identity and values. “He appeals to simple-minded voters. Average Israelis feel that we have given up territory, and at the same time the Arabs don’t want to accept the Jewish nature of the state.”

Simple-minded? Simple? Or perhaps the average Israeli is pretty well a sophisticated voter?

Well, here's another not very complicated observation in that same article:

“The biggest boost his campaign had were pictures of Israeli Arabs waving Hamas flags during the Gaza war and shouting ‘Death to the Jews,’ ” noted Abe Selig, a reporter for The Jerusalem Post who has been covering Mr. Lieberman.

and this too:

There are about 1.3 million Arab citizens of Israel, or a little less than 20 percent of the population. Their loyalties are divided, but never before have they protested so vigorously.

But this bit is not that simple:

Unlike many on the far right, he favors a two-state solution with the Palestinians.

How's that? Maybe that's convoluted or perhaps it's not so simple to grasp what Lieberman is placing on the body politic's agenda.

and what about this:

Uzi Landau, the party’s No. 2, said recently, “In the United States, whoever wants to be a citizen has to pledge allegiance to the country and its Constitution, know the anthem, be familiar with the flag and its history.”

But, despite all this, which to any independent observer would mean that a) things are not that simple and b) there is a serious problem of loyalty which needs a creative solution, one based on democratic fundamentals but assuring that politicide, the stripping off of Israel's character, will not occur, Bronner fails as a reporter when he writes further on:

Taken together, Mr. Lieberman’s proposals aim toward an ethnically purer Jewish state

Ethnically purer would mean he wants all Arabs out or restricted when all he wants is a simple, yes, simple plain old committment of basic loyalty. No screaming "Death to the Jews!", no ieentification/justification of Hamas and other terror groups like Hezbollah.

When the balcks campaigned for civili rights, they won because they did not try to destroy American but rather to demand constitutional liberties.

Arabs deserve more in Israel but that comes with a concommitant element of loyalty.

I won't be voting for him because I, too, am uncomfortable with him and his message although I know it has to be discussed and dealt with. I don't trust him to keep Eretz-Yisrael on the one hand, and I know he won't go anywhere fast with his "loyalty" program, which he has been championing for the past three elections and done nada.

Another Lieberman Poster

I am presuming its anti-Lieberman from the Right but I'll have to wait a bit for my Russian translator.

Here's the translation:-

Security - Nyet
Jerusalem - Nyet
Minister's Chair - Da