Not surprisingly, Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman’s
speech to the UN General Assembly this week drew condemnations,
with Palestinian delegates walking out on the speech.
Israel’s left-wing daily Haaretz ran an
article claiming U.S. Jews were
“outraged.” It quotes extreme-dovish activist Seymour Reich as
saying, “If Lieberman can’t keep his personal opinions to himself,
he ought to resign from the cabinet,” and an unnamed “leader” as
saying, “Every time…Lieberman voices his skepticism about achieving
peace, he undermines Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s
credibility.”
In Israel, among prominent commentators denouncing the
speech was Ron Ben-Yishai in Yediot Aharonot, the
country’s largest daily. In a piece called “Time to Fire
Lieberman,” Ben-Yishai, who usually writes on military
affairs and is often quite reality-cognizant, bitterly
accused
Lieberman of showing “chutzpah and contempt” toward
Netanyahu, “undermin[ing] Israel’s image as a democratic,
enlightened state,” and “grant[ing] a diplomatic victory” to
Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas.
Ministers from the left-of-center Labor Party — part of
Netanyahu’s coalition — also skewered
the speech.
Now, what did Lieberman actually say? A perusal of
the
short address reveals nothing morally
or intellectually objectionable.
After the opening pleasantries, Lieberman asked: “why,
during the seventeen years since we signed the Oslo Accords, have
we not arrived at a comprehensive agreement signifying the end of
the conflict [with the Palestinians]?”
He went on to contest “the prevalent view that the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the heart of the instability in the
Middle East,” noting that:
More than ninety percent of the wars and war victims of
the [region] since the Second World War did not result from the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and are in no way connected to Israel,
stemming rather, from conflicts involving Muslims or conflicts
between Arab states. The Iran-Iraq war, the Gulf war, the wars
between North and South Yemen, the Hamma atrocities in Syria, and
the wars in Algeria and Lebanon, are just a few examples of a list
that goes on and on.
Anything wrong there? Nope; I could have said it
myself.
Lieberman then turned to the “second flawed explanation”
for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, namely, “the so-called
‘occupation,’ the settlements in Judea and Samaria and the settlers
themselves.” He pointed out:
Firstly, all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza were under Arab
control for 19 years, between 1948 and 1967. During these 19 years,
no one tried to create a Palestinian state.
Peace agreements were achieved with Egypt and Jordan
despite the presence of settlements. And the opposite is also true:
we evacuated twenty-one flourishing settlements in Gush Katif [in
Gaza], and we transferred more than 10,000 Jews and in return, we
have Hamas in power and thousands of missiles on Sderot and
southern Israel.
Again, all quite accurate.
Lieberman went on:
The other misguided argument is the claim that the
Palestinian issue prevents a determined international front against
Iran…. In truth, the connection between Iran and the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is precisely reversed. Iran can exist
without Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, but the terrorist
organizations cannot exist without Iran…. [I]n searching for a
durable agreement with the Palestinians…one must understand that
first, the Iranian issue must be resolved….
Adding that “this is not a sufficient condition [but] it
is nevertheless a necessary one,” Lieberman was again spot-on.
He then came to some remarks that indeed diverge from
Netanyahu’s — recently — stated positions. Referring to the
conflict’s underlying “emotional problems” such as the “utter lack
of confidence between the sides,” Lieberman said:
[W]e should focus on coming up with a long-term
intermediate agreement, something that could take a few decades. We
need to raise an entire new generation that will have mutual trust
and will not be influenced by incitement and extremist
messages.
As is true everywhere, where there are two nations, two
religions and two languages with competing claims to the same land,
there is friction and conflict. Countless examples…confirm this,
whether in the Balkans, the Caucasus, Africa, the Far East or the
Middle East. Where effective separation has been achieved, conflict
has either been avoided, or has been dramatically reduced or
resolved. Consider the cases of the former Yugoslav republics, the
split-up of Czechoslovakia and the independence of East
Timor….
Thus, the guiding principle for a final status agreement
must not be land-for-peace but rather, exchange of populated
territory. Let me be very clear: I am not speaking about moving
populations, but rather about moving borders to better reflect
demographic realities.
…This is not an extraordinary insight [nor]
a controversial political policy. It is an empirical
truth.
Again, this is reasonable thinking about the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, both well grounded and
out-of-the-box. It’s inconsistent with what Netanyahu has lately
been saying in two regards: the prime minister’s declared optimism
that an agreement with the Palestinians can be reached within a
year; and his seeming acceptance of the dominant land-for-peace
paradigm now considered (wrongly) to be based on the 1967
borders.
Nevertheless, Netanyahu’s reaction to his subordinate’s
talk was mild. His office stated
that Lieberman’s address was not coordinated with him, and
that “the prime minister is the one who is heading the negotiations
on behalf of the State of Israel. Issues related to the peace
process will be discussed and decided on at the negotiation table,
not anywhere else.”
It was a distancing but not a repudiation, and the
question is why.
One thing to point out is that Lieberman is not from
Netanyahu’s Likud Party but, instead, the leader of his own Yisrael
Beiteinu faction. As such, in Israel’s parliamentary system,
Lieberman’s independence of Netanyahu could be seen as less
jarring. This is, however, a nicety that may not be appreciated
abroad.
Also to be mentioned is Netanyahu’s wish to avoid rocking
the boat of his so-far stable coalition. So is the need to project
that he’s in charge, hence not react too sharply to Lieberman’s
seeming defiance.
But there may be another factor at play as
well.
Few observers believe Netanyahu is actually a convert to
Pollyannaish views of Israel’s conflict with its environment. More
likely, his approach to the Palestinian issue is aimed at managing
the relentless pressure from a U.S. president for whom it’s
an
obsession, and who in his own recent
UN speech devoted ten paragraphs to it compared to two paragraphs
for international terror and two for the Iranian threat.
It could well be that for Netanyahu, too, Lieberman’s
words were a breath of fresh air. Someone needs to tell the
truth.
