Lieberman Accuses Abbas of Seeking ‘Takeover of Israel from Within’
Poor Avigdor Lieberman: he “can’t get no respect” from Mahmoud Abbas, who won’t concede that Israel is, and must forever be a Jewish state (regardless of how many non-Jews are citizens):
Lieberman said…that a statement made by Palestinian…President Mahmoud Abbas…that the Palestinians would not agree to recognize a Jewish state, revealed the true nature of the Palestinian move for recognition of statehood in September.
‘The real intention of the Palestinians is not to establish a state that will live in peace alongside Israel but rather the establishment of a state free of Jews in [the West Bank] and the hostile takeover of Israel from within,” Lieberman said.
In actuality, it is Lieberman who wishes to establish a Jewish state of Israel that is free of Arabs (cf. Arabrein). In this February 2006 Wikileaks cable released a few days ago, Lieberman tells the then U.S. ambassador his ‘solution’ to the “Arab problem:”
Lieberman [said] a separation of Israeli Jews from Israeli Arabs must occur…Lieberman said that the roadmap makes a mistake by advocating a two-state solution, wherein Israel retains two peoples within its borders, Jewish and Arab, while the Palestinian state retains only Palestinians. Lieberman asserted that states that are composed of different “nations” continue to experience conflict. The Ambassador noted that the United States maintains its diversity without experiencing such conflict…
Lieberman said that under his proposal, Israel would negotiate a shift in its borders with the West Bank to place Israeli-Arab population centers…in the Palestinian territories, and some Jewish settlement blocs near the Green Line within Israel…Lieberman claimed he has had meetings with Palestinian leaders and that they expressed willingness to consider this type of land swap. In response to the Ambassador’s query, Lieberman said that the actual border would be the result of negotiations with Egypt, Jordan, and the PA. He said that the plan would also require the endorsement of the U.S. and at least one other member of the Quartet. His proposal would “not be a unilateral move,” but one negotiated with “several partners.” He added that Egypt should also be a part of the solution by providing some of its territory to Gaza, which Lieberman described as too densely populated…
Asked about the status of Israeli Arabs living throughout Israel and in mixed cities, Lieberman acknowledged that this is “more complicated.” He advocated that all Israelis be required to take a loyalty oath, and that those who refuse be stripped of their citizenship. Lieberman emphasized that under his proposal, Israeli Jews would also be subjected to the same requirement. Lieberman said that some ultra-Orthodox religious Jews who do not accept Zionism may have a problem with such an oath…Lieberman asserted that “very few” Muslim Arabs…would sign a loyalty oath.
Most of us know the various discreet proposals Lieberman has to “deal” with Israel’s Arabs. The land/border swaps and the loyalty oath. But here for the first time it became clear to me that Lieberman doesn’t just mean to suppress Israeli Palestinians or reduce their population. He actually means to eliminate them virtually entirely, with of course the possibility that there might be a few pockets of “loyal” ones remaining.
So for Lieberman to accuse Abbas of wanting a state free of Jews is laughable in the context of Lieberman’s own views.
Lieberman’s strange notion that nations composed of more than one “people” are of necessity at war with each other is strange. Not only does the U.S. refute this notion. So do Northern Ireland, Switzerland, Canada and numerous other examples. It is true however, that nations composed of more than one people in which one attempts to subjugate the other often end up facing intractable conflict, as Israel has.
I suppose we should be grateful though that Lieberman hasn’t proposed a Biblical solution to the “Arab problem” simply by eliminating any tribe that stands in the way of the Israelites (anyone heard lately of the Moabites, Amalekites or Jebusites?). At least Lieberman is willing to negotiate his way to an Arabrein state.
You’ll notice also that while Lieberman denies his plan is “unilateral,” the one party he’s neglected to mention as one he’d consult for gaining their approval is the Palestinians themselves. Not a word about how he’d gain their consent to this. And isn’t it nice of him to suggest that Egypt give up its own sovereign territory on behalf of Gazans. I was also touched that Lieberman has such a soft spot in his heart for them as to want to offer them more territory to avert their currently overcrowded living conditions. Mighty white of him.
I’m also a bit unclear on how Abbas’ refusal to concede Israel should be an exclusively Jewish state means he wishes to take Israel over from within. When faced with the prospect of eliminating Israeli Palestinians as Lieberman proposes, does the latter think Abbas will leap at the chance to offer his support?
20 thoughts on “Lieberman Accuses Abbas of Seeking ‘Takeover of Israel from Within’ – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم”
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
Interesting question i whether he actually believes in any of this. If so, then this is a complete shift from the traditional israeli position. Frankly, if he was truly honest (which I heavly doubt), the PA should probably take him up on his offer. Partial arabrein is better than occupation.
The trouble is, the PA does not speak for Palestinian Israelis and cannot negotiate on their behalf, just like Israel’s govt does not speak for non-Israeli Jews…
“Can’t” and “shouldn’t” are very different things. They shouldn’t, but they can.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again:
As I see it, the only way out of this impasse, and to prevent Palestine from declaring itself a separate state which would only aggravate its relations with Israel, is for Israel to give up its insistence on being a Jewish state and declare their willingness to integrate all of Palestine into one Israelo-Palestinian secular state with equal citizenship rights for all. The country could be divided into cantons, as in Switzerland, with one federal capital in Jerusalem. This would solve not only the settler problem – they could stay put, but also the security problem. Not a new idea, and perhaps overly idealistic. But the only alternative is perpetual war, aggression and oppression. Unfortunately, that is the current ideology of US/Israeli partnership – chaotic hegemony in the region.
The messiah must be here – I agree with nearly every word that Gene says!
I would change just one small point – if it is to be a democratic state then it can’t be defined as “secular” since that is anti-democratic – let the people decide whether it will be secular or not without it being a pre-condition.
Also why not let each canton define its identity and language etc as in Switzerland? One canton may be “Jewish” another “secular” and yet another “Muslim”.
Well yes, Shmuel. Hallelujah!
My proposal is based on the principles of the Radical Enlightenment that can be summed up as: democracy; racial and sexual equality; individual liberty of lifestyle; full freedom of thought, expression, and the press; eradication of religious authority from the legislative process and education; and full separation of church and state. It sees the purpose of the state as being the wholly secular one of promoting the worldly interests of the majority and preventing vested minority interests from capturing control of the legislative process. These were the ideas on which the founding precepts of America were based, and which Switzerland helped to shape and lives by, itself. Unfortunately, the US has wandered from that path so far that I would now consider it a totalitarian state. In 1948 we had hoped that Israel would also have followed the Enlightenment path, but as we can see, it is now following contemporary America. At this point I have no illusions that either Israel or the US will ever get back to democracy, but that is may wish.
BTW: I should inform you my description of the Radical Enlightenment is not original. It comes from historian Jonathan Israel’s “A Revolution of the Mind: Radical Enlightenment and the Intellectual Origins of Modern Democracy.”
What means in reality that a “canton” would be Jewish or Muslim?
It is astonishing that you demand the state or canton to have a religious stand in the name of democracy. Religious freedom means that every individual is free to worship what ever he/she wants or free to live without a religion.That individual freedom/right can only be defined by a governmental system, not regulated, limited and guided more by the system if the system is a democracy. The system gives that freedom and takes care that the religious freedom is respected on all levels. If a democracy defines itself as Jewish, Christian, Muslim etc and gives extra privileges to one religion and to its followers it is not a real democracy. Israel has given much extra rights to Jews and limited the rights of non Jews. That is a fact. It is nice to be a Jew in Israel but not so nice for you if you are not. In Israel a persons all future prospects are defined to which religious clan he/she is born or converted and that is done using all administrative levels and opportunities. Of those living in Israel only a Jew can define Israel as a democracy.
Using democracy as the excuse that the majority has the right to decide of the states religious “views” is a very weak argument for Jews, who live as minorities among non Jews. What would be your counter argument if the people in a Swiss canton (or any other state) would vote that only Christianity is allowed live there and non-Christians are kicked out, or that only Christians are allowed to own land etc. That kind of religion/ideology based “democracies” have been extremely dangerous for Jews in the past.
The only way that Israel and Palestine can be a real democracies is that people have equal rights and possibilities despite of their religion and have a real religious freedom. That state can not be Jewish, Christian or Muslim. Only its citizens can be.
Nailed +1, well done!
A democracy HAS to be secular, since religion is, by nature, anti-democratic. While a democray can’t stop it’s citizens from holding anti-demoratic views (such as religion), once those views become endorsed by the state itself, the state is no longer a democracy.
Also, I’d like to add that I have been rooting for the federal solution for years. I tend to see the various possible solutions as a spectrum, with federation sitting in a very good spot between two and one state solutions.
I’m not sure all the states have to be democratic. For example, we could have an ultra-orthodox state, which would be defined as such. As long as all citizens have the option of living in a democracy, and certion federal rules are observed, it could be a better option than full integration.
State-endorsed religion can be troubling from a religious standpoint as well. If you enshrine one religion at the heart of the state, you end up bestowing most of the political power and a lot of social privileges on members of that one faith – at the expense of people who don’t share it. No matter how good your intentions might be, it’s pretty much inevitable that this happens. I am a religious person, but I don’t see how I could live out my faith freely or comfortably in such an environment, especially as justice is intrinsic to what I believe. State-sponsored religion can undermine important religious tenets like that. I know some orthodox Jews who feel similarly.
Don’t forget the Palestinian Christians.
You can be sure that many on the US side of the partnership have Dispensationalism in mind. I.e., the fundies need a Jewish state, with a temple and sacrifices, so the Anti-Christ can defile it, and then Jesus returns.
Complete off-topic (or not so…)
warning: hard stomach (or, alternatively, a heart of stone) are a necessity here.
Did you know that you were recently mentioned (not favorably) in Ha’aretz?
Not sure if you saw this or not:
However, the uncertainty concerning the terrorists’ identity generated mountains of conspiracy theories. Most off-the-wall was Richard Silverstein on his blog Tikun Olam. In the wake of the report that three of the killed terrorists were Egyptian citizens, Silverstein intimated that Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak bombed Gaza to divert attention from Egypt. He even said Israel’s latest bombings in Gaza were war crimes.
Apologize for off-topic nature – wasn’t sure where else to post. Thought you’d be interested to see it.
Remember what I wrote about stenographers? Issacharoff merely parrots the IDF line about the PRC being responsible for the attack, never once presenting any evidence of this. And he of course mischaracterizes my views. I did not say they bombed Gaza to ‘divert attention.’ I said they bombed Gaza because Israelis would demand that the gov’t take revenge on someone and Gaza was the most likely target since it couldn’t fight back. I said that if Israel cannot present evidence to prove anyone in Gaza was responsible and attacked Gaza nevertheless, that this would be a grave moral stain and possibly a war crime. I said these attacks should be investigated as seriously as the charges concerning Cast Lead. I did not say that they “were war crimes.”
RE: “Lieberman’s strange notion that nations composed of more than one ‘people’ are of necessity at war with each other is strange.” ~ R.S.
SEE: Small Homogeneous States Only Solution for Middle East, By Mordechai Kedar, Bar-Ilan Univ., 4/01/11
ENTIRE ARTICLE – http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=51683
ALSO SEE: Oded Yinon’s “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” – Yinon’s strategy was based on the premise that in order to survive Israel must become an imperial regional power and must also ensure the break-up of all Arab countries so that the region is carved up into small ineffectual states unequipped to stand up to Israeli military might. LINK – http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf
Kedar is Israel’s resident Bernard Lewis, an ersatz Arabist, expert on everything Arab. He even goes on Al Jazeera spouting this nonsense in Arabic!
Brilliant post! thanks to dickerson!! I do not have the stomach to read more Kedar or any of his “soul brother” Yerushalmi or those other tin hats found on various Islamophobe sites from Geller to Pipes…but for years I’ve nagged, pled and arm twisted folks into reading Yinon’s WZO ‘strateegery’ aimed at destroying entire M/E in order to dominate. Chutzpah is too benign a word to use…but there does seem to be an annoying familiarity between these brownshirted narcissists all…super well funded arrogant narrow minded stiff necked schmucks.
I’m very grateful for the opportunity of reading Richard’s almost daily blog. How widely is it read by a Palestinian audience? I realise there are language problems but I would greatly appreciate reading more of their “replies” to these many issues.