The Lieberman We Need To Worry About

Israeli Minister of Minority Affairs Avishai Braverman (Labor) thinks Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman should be fired from his ministry for saying that an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “…is not achievable in the next year or in the next generation.”

One understands Braverman’s point. Lieberman was, after all, not just offering an analysis. He himself is one of the main reasons that the pessimism he expresses exists. Lieberman is not merely a bystander offering a judgment, but an actor working against the sorts of resolutions that have, for more than 15 years, made up the foundation of a two-state solution.

But Braverman’s solution wouldn’t really change much. Lieberman’s “role” as Foreign Minister has been thoroughly curtailed. Indeed, every now and then, Lieberman, who is well aware of his marginalization in the Netanyahu government, bristles and has a public spat with his boss, Benjamin Netanyahu.

Bibi might toss Lieberman some kind of bone, but he has made it clear that Lieberman is not part of the inner circle. His opinion, in and of itself, carries no weight, and Bibi’s only concern (and it is a serious one) is what Lieberman can do domestically to rally people against the Likud leader.

This was evidenced once again at the Washington launch of direct talks between Israel and the Palestinians last week. Surely, any country’s foreign minister should be present at such a momentous event. But Lieberman couldn’t make it as he had a very important job in bringing his diplomatic powers to bear on the sensitive and crucial relationship between Israel and … Cyprus.

Bibi and Ehud Barak function as Israel’s Foreign Minister; this is well known. When one considers how much damage Lieberman’s Ministry has done to Israeli diplomacy (greatly magnifying the problems which are caused by some very misguided Israeli policies and actions) one can only imagine how bad a position Israel would be in as far as international standing goes if Bibi really let Lieberman be a foreign minister.

That’s not say that Lieberman is not a major threat, to peace, to the Palestinians, to Israeli security and democracy. It’s just that removing him from the foreign ministry, as Braverman calls for, won’t actually affect Lieberman’s ability to cause such problems.

Lieberman’s real strength is in his leadership of Yisrael Beiteinu, the second biggest party in the governing coalition Bibi leads, and his position as Israel’s most influential right-wing demagogue. The sad fact is that Lieberman, whose fanatical anti-Arab racism has drawn rebuke from a range of pundits that stretches from MJ Rosenberg all the way too Marty Peretz, has a sizable following in Israel.

This must be taken very seriously, and Lieberman can manipulate that popularity whether he is Foreign Minister or not, which is why Braverman’s remedy is insufficient.

Israel is still a democracy, albeit a democracy whose democratic structure is under increasing attack, as evidenced by the activities not only of leaders like Lieberman, but of groups like Im Tirtzu. And as such, political views of all types must be given their airspace. But for a democracy to function, forces like Lieberman’s which threaten that very democracy, as well as Israel’s security by opposing and trying to undermine peace with the Palestinians must be forcefully opposed.

It is not enough to oppose Lieberman’s presence in the Cabinet. Lieberman’s attempts to rid Israel of its non-Jewish inhabitants is an assault on the very essence of the Zionist dream, which sought to create a Jewish homeland that was also capable of governing a diverse community of people with reasonable equanimity. Israel has fallen very short of that goal already, but Lieberman’s drive to actually rid Israel of its Arab citizens directly contradicts the ideals of Zionism, right and left wings.

Lieberman’s marginalization in the government has had the unhappy side effect of letting Israelis treat him as a kind of embarrassing joke. Everyone in Israel knows he has no pull in the government, so they’d rather, quite understandably, try to ignore him.

But this means missing an opportunity to take back the notion of a Jewish homeland from those who understand that to mean Jewish domination of non-Jews. Ongoing support for Israel, from liberal Diaspora Jews as well as many other groups, depends on Israel becoming the state it can be, but has never been since its birth: a state that is the Jewish homeland, but which gives full equal rights, both on the books and in practice, to everyone.

That’s a lot to ask. Certainly we, in the United States, however much we may have progressed from slavery, and later, the Jim Crow days, still struggle with racism, disenfranchisement, and bigotry. The current wave of hate against Muslims as embodied in one church’s “Burn-a-Qu’ran Day” and the Park 51, or Ground Zero Mosque debate, demonstrates this amply.

But Israel is not the United States. It’s a much smaller country, much more of a community/country, and, due to the manner of its birth and the permanent conflict it has always lived with, its democracy is a much more fragile thing. And its dependence on escaping its own increasing pariah status is much more important to its future survival.

One cannot expect Israel to suddenly become an egalitarian utopia, but it must start t reverse the course it is on; that is, the course that led to the last election, where right-wing groups garnered so much support and an open racist like Lieberman can hold the keys to forming a new government as he did in 2009.

That is accomplished through public discourse and debate. It happens by the silent majority of Israelis who find such views abhorrent convincing some of Lieberman’s supporters to change their minds and marginalizing the rest. We’ve seen that process take place in many countries.

Lieberman is an embarrassment, but he is also a danger, one that needs to be confronted. It’s up to Israelis to do it, but it’s certainly a process that we in the Diaspora can contribute to and encourage. It’s time we do so.

Initial thoughts on Gaza conflict

Some initial thoughts on "Operation Cast Lead" (maybe the name works in Hebrew, but in English, not so much):

In my view, Israel has been involved in two or three totally just wars: the Yom Kippur War, the War of Independence and, with some reservations, the Six Day War.

In October 1973, we were attacked by the Egyptians and the Syrians, and the natural and necessary response was to fight back. True, if Golda Meir had responded to Nasser and Sadat's initiatives, we probably could have avoided the war - but she didn't, and when the Egyptians attacked (we now know to break the impasse and force political movement), we had to respond.

In 1948, the UN backed the partition plan, and when the internal (Palestinian) Arabs and the external Arab countries didn't accept the decision and fought it militarily, the result was a just war.

In 1967, Nasser was bluffing, but we couldn't know that. He called on the UN to withdraw its forces from Sinai, blockaded the Straits of Tiran, and the result was the Six Day War, with its mixed bag of consequences.

When the Egyptians and Syrians attacked, my personal response on October 5th 1973 was to call my unit, and ask what we were doing. The response: "Don't worry, you'll know soon enough", and the call-up came a few hours later. If I were of military age now, I would not be calling my unit to find out how we were going to respond.

In July 2006, I was opposed from day one to the invasion of southern Lebanon, believing that the response was totally out of proportion to the actions of Hezbollah, and that the stated goal of bringing the kidnapped soldiers back was totally unobtainable (we now know that it was known at the time that they were already probably dead), and that it was also impossible to "destroy" Hezbollah, which is an integral part of Lebanese society. I think that the outcome of that war justifies my initial response.

This time around is more complex.
In my view, it's totally unacceptable for the government to claim, as it did for a long time, that "there is no way of solving the problem of the Kassam rockets." A solution had/has to be found, and there are solutions.

In many respects, Hamas brought this military operation (war?) on itself by its declarations that the cease-fire (tahadiya) was not being renewed on December 19th, and the renewed firing of Kassam rockets, while it was maneuvering for a "better cease-fire" from its point of view - i.e. the lifting of the international blockade, etc.

It is understandable that the government felt that it was necessary to act, militarily, due to pressure from public opinion, the media and the right. After-all, we are in the middle of an election campaign. Those are also part of the rules of Middle Eastern life - you can't show weakness when being attacked - you have to show that you are strong.

Of course, there are a number of original sins that led to this moment. One was the fact that the Sharon government insisted on carrying out a unilateral disengagement from Gaza, instead of negotiating and handing over the keys to Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority. The second was the fact that the Israeli government gave in to the Bush Administration's insistence that the Palestinian elections be held in 2006, despite Israeli and Palestinian reservations about the timing and outcome, and the result was the Hamas victory. The third original sin was the fact that Hamas carried out a coup against the PA in Gaza and played a game of chicken with Israel with the Kassams. The sooner this action ends the better.

It should be clear that that it is impossible to "overthrow" Hamas in Gaza. The way to defeat Hamas is to offer the large majority of Palestinians a better way of life. It is also impossible to bring back Gilad Shalit via a military action. In my view, this action endangers his life. In addition, a large-scale ground action would cost many lives on both sides, and create the possibility of getting drawn into another Lebanon-like swamp.

There is also the question of proportionality. How many Israelis have been killed by all of the Kassams, and how many Palestinians were killed in one day by the Israeli air force? As commentator Shlomi Eldar said on TV tonight, one of the primary outcomes of this action (war?) will be to increase hatred of Israel and Israelis among the Palestinian people, whose cousins, brothers and children are being killed.

The Israeli government is using the twilight time between the end of the discredited Bush administration and the entrance of the Obama administration onto to the scene to act, under the assumption that the international community will find it difficult to intervene coherently.

And yet, Israel needs an exit strategy, and once again, the sooner the better. That exit strategy will require international involvement, if not intervention. There are ideas being circulated about the possibility of an international mandate over Gaza, and possibly the West Bank as well (replacing the IDF) with regional Arab and international forces. That might be the desirable outcome, but it's not at all clear whether the international community has the will to do this.

The bottom line is that peace is the key to security, and peace is obtainable.

P.S. These things fluctuate tremendously, but according to a Channel l0 poll tonight, for the first time in a long time, the center-left - Kadima, Labor and Meretz - with the backing of the Arab parties - has a 61 vote majority in the next Knesset, which would make Tzippy Livni, and not Netanyahu, the next PM. That's true for today, and could change tomorrow.