Listen to Lieberman
Op-ed: Maligned foreign minister’s plan better than current notion of two-state solution
All those people who are now calling for Avigdor Lieberman to quit, or be fired, should know that we’ve seen similar conduct by previous foreign ministers. For example, once upon a time we had Foreign Minister Shimon Peres, who worked behind his prime minister’s back and formulated the contemptible Oslo Accords without the PM’s knowledge.
I cannot recall what all those people who currently seek Lieberman’s head thought about Peres’ abovementioned move, undertaken with the help of his adjutant, Yossi Beilin. However, I’m certain that they did not demand PM Rabin fire the two, despite the diplomatic folly they dragged him into.
I have one question for all those people who now seek to crucify the foreign minister for daring to present his plan (and keep in mind this is no more than a plan at this time) – did they stop for a moment to examine it? That is, perhaps it includes some measure of logic?
In fact, what did Avigdor Lieberman tell us? The “Palestinian people” wants, in practice, a “Palestinian state” clear of any Jews (in German this was called Judenrein) in Judea and Samaria, another such state in the Gaza Strip, and yet another one, similar to the other two, across the Jordan River.
At the same time, the Palestinians (who were not recognized as a people by the nations of the world until 1967) want the State of Israel to be a bi-national state, or a multicultural one (to borrow a phrase from the anarchists from the leftist anti-Zionist camp) that would be home to a very large Arab majority, which is already demanding cultural autonomy, as well as to hundreds of thousands of refugees (and possibly many more) who shall return to their villages and to the communities they left in 1948.
This is, in fact, what Avigdor Lieberman seeks to avert.
Clearly marked borders
If there is no solution, he says, let’s turn the two states – the State of Israel and Palestine – into nation-states that are only home to the nationalities they were established for. Such solution is only possible if we see the tradeoff of populated areas. The Triangle area in northern Israel, for example, with its land and homes and residents, would be handed over to the Palestinian Authority, while areas such as Gush Etzion, Ariel, and Maale Adumim, with their residents, shall shift into the State of Israel’s territory.
We shall see clearly marked borders. All the Jews would be on one side of the border, and all the Arabs would be on the other side. A homogenous Jewish parliament without Ahmad Tibi and Taleb al-Sana. What could be bad about that?
I’m not saying this should be the solution, or that there are no other possible solutions, such as one federation from Sea to River that has two houses of parliament, a Jewish and an Arab one, as is the case in other places in the world.
I don’t know what the best, safest solution is for us Jews, who already experienced quite a few pogroms and Holocausts, not only at the hands of the Muslims but mostly at the hands of European nations. Yet I’m certain about one thing: The “solution” being offered today, premised on the current “two states vision,” would bring about the Jewish state’s demise within a very short period of time.
No security arrangements would prevent the Iranians, for example, from deploying missiles on the eastern boundaries of central Israel towns. They already did it in the Gaza Strip and in southern Lebanon after the IDF foolishly withdraw from there.
Ahmad Tibi and Taleb al-Sana will apparently be happy with such solution. But we must not agree to even hold a real public debate on issues that are crucial to our existence. And so, automatically disqualifying Avigdor Lieberman is a move that must not succeed.
Baruch atem b'Shem, Yeshua