Thursday, January 29, 2009


Some very appalling revelations have come up about Avigdor Lieberman, the head of the Yisrael Beiteinu party:
(IsraelNN.com) In a new book, former US Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk has dropped a potential political bombshell, revealing that Avigdor Lieberman, head of the Yisrael Beitenu party, once held secret talks on territorial concessions to the Palestinian Authority (PA) with one of Yasser Arafat's key advisers.

In addition, Indyk asserts that Lieberman told his PA interlocutor, Muhammad Rachid, that he was prepared to accept the wide-ranging concessions which then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak had offered to Arafat at the 2000 Camp David Summit.


Indyk's revelations could prove damaging to Lieberman, whose party is soaring in the polls in advance of Israel's February 10 elections, thanks in large part to his nationalist image among the public.

Irene Etinger, Avigdor Lieberman's spokeswoman, commented on Indyk's claim, "The facts quoted in the book are not true."

Political observers suggest that Lieberman and his party are now likely to come under increased scrutiny in the wake of Indyk's book, particularly in light of Lieberman's past statements on the issue of Jerusalem.

As Israel National News reported previously, in October 2007 Lieberman came under fire for suggesting at a cabinet meeting that Israel should divide Jerusalem and transfer various neighborhoods within the city to PA control.
It doesn't do much good to deny what Indyk is telling in his new book if Lieberman really did say those things back at the time. The Jerusalem Post also spoke about Lieberman's peculiar standings at the time. If transferring sovereignty to the PLO were in any ways to lead to terrorists gaining footholds for carrying out their operations, to say nothing of safe haven from Israeli authorities, that's exactly why it's dangerous to do what Lieberman's supporting.

Now I see why I would rather vote for the Likud today, and would strongly advise others to do the same.

Speaking of which, over at the Biur Chametz blog, the blogmaster is appalled at Lieberman for simultaneously fanning the flames of hate against the Arabs. Hmm. I think I can expand a little further on that: aside from the strange double-standard Lieberman's maintaining, where he's blowing it is if he doesn't make any clear distinctions between Arabs and Muslims, and if he's not willing to offer a helping hand to Christians who could be persecuted by the Islamofascists.

If that's the case, then Lieberman is guilty not only of bizarre double-standards, he's also guilty of lacking any sense of selflessness. And I think the lesson to be learned from how Sderot and Ashkelon have fallen victim to rocket attacks can and does apply strongly to Jerusalem as well.

So Lieberman is simply not a recommended candidate, for the very fact that he does weird moral equations and double-standards and fails to show he can be selfless and help innocents in need.

Update: Benjamin Netanyahu also spoke about Lieberman's double-standard at his speech the other day.


Anonymous said...


Netanyahu is no better than Peres. I do NOT trust him, not even for a moment. He lied to get elected before, just like Ariel Sharon, and once he got in he gave away Hebron and gave the Arabs the guns they used to kill us with. He may talk tough, but he is a deceptive spineless jellyfish.

While Netanyahu stayed with Sharon until it was too late, Lieberman was the only one who opposed the disengagement and was fired for it! "Lieberman was dismissed from the Sharon government and cabinet in 2004 (16th Knesset) for opposition to the Disengagement Plan; he resigned from the Olmert government coalition in early 2008 in protest at the resumption of negotiations with the Palestinians..." Indyk is an anti-Israel schmuck, and I wouldn't put it past him to lie, as do all the Leftists, to undermine one of the only obstacles to the Leftist agenda.

Avi Green said...

Look, he's not as bad as Peres, because Peres is the father of Oslo. Aside from that, have you ever considered that Yitzhak Mordecai, whom I wrote about a few years ago, is responsible for manipulating Netanyahu into making concessions? I'm not trying to say that Netanyahu is %100 innocent, but if you completely obscure Mordecai's own role in this, I think you're making a big mistake. Why does only Netanyahu matter, but not Mordecai? Just because Mordecai has been out of the picture for years now does not mean he's not important for faulting.

Anonymous said...

Avi, you need to listen to this from Tovia Singer.

Steven Plaut's assessment is also a must read.

Netanyahu is a phony, and if anything he's worse than Peres, because at least Peres tells you what he wants to do, while people like the Beebster tell you one thing and do the opposite.

wingless said...

Even if what Indyk is saying is true - the Lieberman of today would not do such a thing as he is one of the few that realizes this conflict has NOTHING TO DO WITH LAND & everything to do with age old Islamic hatred of "the other"...

He's over the top, almost seems rabid at times - everything that scares me about him also convinces me he's less of a politician than the "rest of 'em". I think that's why alot of the things he says come out so "unpolished".

Furthermore, it seems like all of the media & even some o/w fair blogs have been quick to call him "anti-Arab" when at the end of the day, he is just asking for WHAT EVERY NATION ON EARTH DEMANDS OF ITS CITIZENS : to swear allegiance to the state. Lieberman's mistake was to state that only Arabs should take the oath, I believe EVERYONE should take the oath. When people get their Canadian citizenship they swear an oath, why not in Israel?

Furthermore - SOME of the Arab MKs have indeed committed what would be called TREASON in almost every nation on the planet! They call for the destruction of the state (ISN'T IT IRONIC! THE ONLY PLACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST WHERE ARABS CAN SERVE ON A DEMOCRATIC PARLIAMENT...AND WHAT DO THEY DO?! CALL FOR ITS DESTRUCTION FROM INSIDE THAT PARLIAMENT! WOW!) and actively engage enemies of the state when the elected majority forbids it (not only treason, but undemocratic as well).

As for Netanyahu - he should stick to Hasbara - for that is what he does best. Nobody presents the case for Israel better than Bibi. This is a part of the conflict that until this last incursion, seemed to be TOTALLY IGNORED. As a result, the LOUD MINORITY has been able to monopolize the issue. Bibi should stick to what he does best.

So who to vote for???
Be damned if I know!!!
Right now I just want a leader that realizes that this conflict has nothing to do with land.
I want a leader that will admit that every Israeli concession has lead to an INCREASE in Jewish deaths.
I want a leader that will not continue to go through the same motions while expecting a different result. (wake up and smell the gunpowder!)