Israel's Netanyahu adds hard-liner to coalition

[webfact]

Israel's Netanyahu adds hard-liner to coalition
Associated Press

JERUSALEM (AP) — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu named one of Israel's most polarizing politicians as defense minister on Wednesday, solidifying his parliamentary majority at the risk of antagonizing the international community and his own military — and clouding already slim hopes for a resumption of peace efforts.

The addition of Avigdor Lieberman to the Cabinet comes at a sensitive time. After a two-year breakdown in talks, France is preparing to host a conference next month aimed at restarting negotiations. At the same time, the U.S.-led quartet of international peace mediators is set to release a report expected to be critical of Israel.

While both Netanyahu and Lieberman pledged to pursue peace with Israel's Arab neighbors, their tough positions on key issues, strained relationship with much of the international community and the makeup of the rest of the Cabinet would seem to make significant progress a long shot.

In Washington, State Department spokesman Mark Toner expressed concerns with Israel's right-wing tilt.

"This raises legitimate questions about the direction it may be heading in and what kind of policies it may adopt," Toner told reporters.

One of Israel's most divisive leaders, Lieberman, 57, is known for a sharp tongue that has offended allies and opponents at home and abroad.

He entered politics in the 1990s as an aide to Netanyahu before breaking away and founding Yisrael Beitenu, an ultranationalist party that relies on immigrants from the former Soviet Union as its base of support. Lieberman himself was born in the former Soviet republic of Moldova and speaks Hebrew with a strong Russian accent.

Over the years, he has been both a key ally and strong rival of Netanyahu's, holding a series of high-level Cabinet posts, including serving twice as Netanyahu's foreign minister. With the addition of Yisrael Beitenu's five seats, Netanyahu now holds a comfortable 66 to 54 majority in parliament, bringing some much needed stability to what had been a shaky coalition.

But Netanyahu's Cabinet is now dominated by religious and nationalist hard-liners who oppose Palestinian independence — a key goal of the international community and the U.S.-led peace process. Lieberman himself is a West Bank settler.

An outspoken skeptic of peace efforts with the Palestinians, Lieberman delivered a speech at the United Nations in 2010 that cast doubt on the goal of establishing an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. Instead, he talked of a decades-long intermediate period and proposed shifting regional borders to rid Israel of its Arab citizens and incorporate West Bank settlements into Israel.

Netanyahu distanced himself from the speech, saying it did not reflect Israeli policy.

When the Palestinians sought upgraded membership at the U.N. in 2012, Lieberman called for toppling President Mahmoud Abbas.

Just a few weeks ago, he suggested that a top Hamas leader in Gaza be killed if the Islamic militant group doesn't return the remains of two Israeli soldiers it is holding. And during a 2014 war against Gaza militants, Lieberman favored much harsher military action.

Wednesday's coalition agreement proposes changes in Israeli military law that could pave the way for executions of convicted terrorists. Israel has a death penalty for certain cases, but it has never been enforced. The new changes, which would require a parliamentary vote, could make it easier to apply the law.

Addressing concerns about their alliance, both Netanyahu and Lieberman voiced messages of moderation Wednesday.

Netanyahu vowed to "pursue every avenue for peace," while Lieberman promised a "reasonable policy."

"All of us have commitments to peace, to the final status agreement, to understanding between us and our neighbors," Lieberman said, speaking in English in a message aimed at the international community.

The last round of peace talks broke down two years ago due to wide gaps between the sides.

Although Netanyahu has called for a return to negotiations, his refusal to endorse the internationally backed contours of a peace agreement — and continued construction of settlements on occupied lands sought by the Palestinians — have fueled widespread doubts about his intentions, and the Palestinians say there is no point in talking.

The make-up of his expanded coalition appears to make it even more unlikely that Netanyahu will make significant concessions to the Palestinians.

"Adding Lieberman to the government ... threatens to destroy the two-state solution," warned Saeb Erekat, a senior Palestinian official. "The result will be religious and political extremism, and violence and terrorism and bloodshed."

Israeli opposition leader Isaac Herzog, a moderate who last week had been in talks to join the government, said Netanyahu has become a "hostage" to the hard-line Israeli right wing. He called Wednesday's appointment "a day of sorrow."

In addition to the Palestinians, Lieberman has also managed to alienate Israel's own Arab minority, many of whom identify with their Palestinian brethren.

He led a failed attempt to require Arabs to take a loyalty oath, and once said that Arab lawmakers who meet with members of the anti-Israel Hamas group should be executed.

"Lieberman is a fascist similar to the fascists from the '30s of the last century," said Ayman Odeh, the leader of the Arab bloc in parliament. "He is inciting against the Arab citizens."

While Lieberman has been a member of the sensitive inner Security Cabinet, he has limited military experience. The parliament's website says he only reached the low rank of corporal, and he reportedly had only a brief career working in an army warehouse.

Set to be sworn in next week, he will help oversee military policy and handle delicate security matters with international allies.

He has angered neighboring Egypt with comments in the past, including a suggestion that Israel bomb Egypt's Aswan Dam. In another moment of anger, he said Egypt's then-president Hosni Mubarak could "go to hell."

Egyptian leaders have not forgotten those comments, and it remains unclear whether the appointment will affect relations. Israel and Egypt work closely together in a joint battle against Islamic militants.

But Lieberman's biggest troubles could come at home with the army. The Israeli military tends to be more pragmatic and moderate than hard-line politicians like Lieberman, and it's unclear how they will respond if he issues an order that the generals disagree with.

Lieberman replaces Moshe Yaalon, a decorated former military chief of staff who had warm relations with the army command.

Yaalon was forced out after siding with his commanders in a series of disagreements with political hard-liners.

In March, for example, he backed military leaders who had criticized a soldier who was caught on video fatally shooting an already-wounded Palestinian attacker in the head. The soldier is now on trial for manslaughter,

Lieberman went to the court to offer his support for the soldier.

Avraham Diskin, a political scientist at Hebrew University, said Lieberman is more pragmatic than commonly thought but also is unpredictable and problematic for Netanyahu.

"There is a matter of style. There is a matter of image in the world, which is, I think, not very positive to say the least," he said.

___

Associated Press writer Bradley Klapper in Washington contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-05-26

[GeorgesAbitbol]

Great work Bibi.

Now there is no more room for discussion : having Lieberman who lives in a west bank settlement and want to retake it fully for Israel show what kind of politic this government wants. For sure not a solution!

[coma]

This article pretty much covers all bases when it comes to agenda in this appointment. Well written Mr Bradley Klapper and to all that had input into this article. You have source well and summed it all up perfectly.

Basically it is a manoeuvre to scuttle international efforts, even those of Israel's closest and most staunch supporter, of peace in the region. Why ? Because Israel [and rightly so] will get the short straw after any peace deals and have to make massive concessions. Concessions that they will NEVER agree with. Plain,simple and fact.

[Morch]

Great work Bibi.

Now there is no more room for discussion : having Lieberman who lives in a west bank settlement and want to retake it fully for Israel show what kind of politic this government wants. For sure not a solution!

"...and want to retake it fully for Israel..."

Second (or third?) time you post the same. Most of what Lieberman advocates does not include Israel taking over the whole West Bank. He got not interest in making demographics more problematic than they are.

[Scott]

Off-topic post remove.

[JingerBen]

Great work Bibi.

Now there is no more room for discussion : having Lieberman who lives in a west bank settlement and want to retake it fully for Israel show what kind of politic this government wants. For sure not a solution!

"...and want to retake it fully for Israel..."

Second (or third?) time you post the same. Most of what Lieberman advocates does not include Israel taking over the whole West Bank. He got not interest in making demographics more problematic than they are.

That's just balderdash.

Demographics couldn't be any more problematic than they are at present with Israel broken out of their legitimate 1967 borders and occupying Palestinian land.

What Lieberman advocates doesn't mean a thing right now. The question is how he and his fellow radical Zionists will respond to the French peace initiative.

[dexterm]

Great work Bibi.

Now there is no more room for discussion : having Lieberman who lives in a west bank settlement and want to retake it fully for Israel show what kind of politic this government wants. For sure not a solution!

"...and want to retake it fully for Israel..."

Second (or third?) time you post the same. Most of what Lieberman advocates does not include Israel taking over the whole West Bank. He got not interest in making demographics more problematic than they are.

As a variation on the Lieberman Plan which is ethnic cleansing by sleight of hand and a further land grab: revoking citizenship based purely on racist lines, with anyone wanting to retain citizenship having to swear allegiance to the racist Zionist state of Israel thus making themselves instant second class citizens.

Just an alternative idea off the top of my head. Haven't really thought it through yet.

How about offering non revocable dual (Israeli and Palestinian) nationality to any Israeli Palestinian (maybe Israeli Jew too) who wants it. Similar to the dual citizenship in N. Ireland.

Hold a referendum in every Israeli village/municipality, and ask the people involved whether they want to be inside Israel or Palestine.

Based on those results Israel swaps land based on 100% of the area it wants to retain in the West Bank. That may include some Israeli Palestinian villages IF the people so desire, but not simply based on a stroke of Lieberman's pen.

If things dont work out, dual citizens can move back to live where they prefer.

Just a thought.

[wabothai]

I feel sorry for all Israelians to have to deal with these two warmongers.

GET RID OF THEM !!

[Morch]

Great work Bibi.

Now there is no more room for discussion : having Lieberman who lives in a west bank settlement and want to retake it fully for Israel show what kind of politic this government wants. For sure not a solution!

"...and want to retake it fully for Israel..."

Second (or third?) time you post the same. Most of what Lieberman advocates does not include Israel taking over the whole West Bank. He got not interest in making demographics more problematic than they are.

That's just balderdash.

Demographics couldn't be any more problematic than they are at present with Israel broken out of their legitimate 1967 borders and occupying Palestinian land.

What Lieberman advocates doesn't mean a thing right now. The question is how he and his fellow radical Zionists will respond to the French peace initiative.

Lieberman is one of the few right wing politicians in Israel acknowledging relevant demographic issues. The last thing on his mind is a one-state solution incorporating the West Bank Palestinians as part of Israel. While his motivations are at odds with those of most posters (myself included), and the means advocated questionable, it is not quite what the original post replied to states.

As for "demographics couldn't be any more problematic..." - guess we have a different grasp of the concept. Demographics imply change, albeit long term. Saying things couldn't be worse is like saying demographics are at work. The (Illegal) settlement effort in the West Bank, the so-called Palestinian Right of Return, Israel's worries about maintaining itself as a Jewish majority country - all would be non-issues if demographics couldn't be worse. Considering this was discussed in detail on many a topic, it is a very odd statement (if taken seriously, and not as a shoddy propaganda bit).

If "what Lieberman advocates does not mean a thing right now", then both the post I replied to and the OP are irrelevant. The French peace initiative is but one of the issues to which "what Lieberman advocates" applies. Considering Netanyahu pretty much rejected the French peace initiative even before Lieberman's party joined his coalition, the latter's role can be seen as supportive, but not central. The current Israeli government includes at least two parties not fitting the generic "radical Zionists" tag - one religious orthodox (not Zionists), and one centrist (not radical).

[Morch]

Great work Bibi.

Now there is no more room for discussion : having Lieberman who lives in a west bank settlement and want to retake it fully for Israel show what kind of politic this government wants. For sure not a solution!

"...and want to retake it fully for Israel..."

Second (or third?) time you post the same. Most of what Lieberman advocates does not include Israel taking over the whole West Bank. He got not interest in making demographics more problematic than they are.

As a variation on the Lieberman Plan which is ethnic cleansing by sleight of hand and a further land grab: revoking citizenship based purely on racist lines, with anyone wanting to retain citizenship having to swear allegiance to the racist Zionist state of Israel thus making themselves instant second class citizens.

Just an alternative idea off the top of my head. Haven't really thought it through yet.

How about offering non revocable dual (Israeli and Palestinian) nationality to any Israeli Palestinian (maybe Israeli Jew too) who wants it. Similar to the dual citizenship in N. Ireland.

Hold a referendum in every Israeli village/municipality, and ask the people involved whether they want to be inside Israel or Palestine.

Based on those results Israel swaps land based on 100% of the area it wants to retain in the West Bank. That may include some Israeli Palestinian villages IF the people so desire, but not simply based on a stroke of Lieberman's pen.

If things dont work out, dual citizens can move back to live where they prefer.

Just a thought.

Barking up the wrong tree, not a fan of Lieberman or his views. As posted previously, his motivations and means are questionable.

To put some things in perspective, though - the "land grab" alluded to amounts to territorial exchanges. Granted, not on an equal basis, but not as one sided as presented. Further, neither side, nor the inhabitants (of whatever affiliation) of said areas were much thrilled with these ideas. Swearing allegiance by itself is not a unique concept, but again, obviously there are issues with Lieberman's rendering of the idea.

One of the things Lieberman objects to is that while the future Palestinian state would be almost entirely ethnically homogeneous, Israel would be retain a significant Arab (or rather Palestinian) minority. Thus, in effect, this does not create a two state reality, but one Palestinian state, and a mixed Jewish/Palestinian state. The terminology and means he wishes to apply are disturbing, but the analysis is essentially correct.

In reference to your "just a thought" - The main obvious issue would be territorial continuity. If this is not clear enough, consider the current fragmented state of the West Bank. Second, the Palestinian Constitution does not provide for Israelis (more to the point Israeli Jews) to become Palestinian citizens. If memory serves, there were polls taken among relevant Arab communities in Israel, which did not indicate much enthusiasm for changing sovereigns.

As for the "If things dont work out, dual citizens can move back to live where they prefer" bit - just the sort of social experiment mentality disconnected from relevant realities of the conflict and the Middle East. Things-not-working-out tend to be sorted in less than amicable fashion in them parts. Not spelling out just what Things-not-working-out implies is just the flip side of glossing over the basic lack of trust and willingness from both parties.

[dexterm]

Sorry thread full.

Morch wrote...

Barking up the wrong tree, not a fan of Lieberman or his views. As posted previously, his motivations and means are questionable.

To put some things in perspective, though - the "land grab" alluded to amounts to territorial exchanges. Granted, not on an equal basis, but not as one sided as presented. Further, neither side, nor the inhabitants (of whatever affiliation) of said areas were much thrilled with these ideas. Swearing allegiance by itself is not a unique concept, but again, obviously there are issues with Lieberman's rendering of the idea.

One of the things Lieberman objects to is that while the future Palestinian state would be almost entirely ethnically homogeneous, Israel would be retain a significant Arab (or rather Palestinian) minority. Thus, in effect, this does not create a two state reality, but one Palestinian state, and a mixed Jewish/Palestinian state. The terminology and means he wishes to apply are disturbing, but the analysis is essentially correct.

In reference to your "just a thought" - The main obvious issue would be territorial continuity. If this is not clear enough, consider the current fragmented state of the West Bank. Second, the Palestinian Constitution does not provide for Israelis (more to the point Israeli Jews) to become Palestinian citizens. If memory serves, there were polls taken among relevant Arab communities in Israel, which did not indicate much enthusiasm for changing sovereigns.

As for the "If things dont work out, dual citizens can move back to live where they prefer" bit - just the sort of social experiment mentality disconnected from relevant realities of the conflict and the Middle East. Things-not-working-out tend to be sorted in less than amicable fashion in them parts. Not spelling out just what Things-not-working-out implies is just the flip side of glossing over the basic lack of trust and willingness from both parties.

>>To put some things in perspective, though - the "land grab" alluded to amounts to territorial exchanges. Granted, not on an equal basis, but not as one sided as presented.

...that's your usual obfuscatory way of saying a land grab is not a land grab. If exchanges are not on an equal basis, and one side ends up with more than they started with, then its a land grab, and would be a future source of contention.

>>One of the things Lieberman objects to is that while the future Palestinian state would be almost entirely ethnically homogeneous, Israel would be retain a significant Arab (or rather Palestinian) minority. Thus, in effect, this does not create a two state reality, but one Palestinian state, and a mixed Jewish/Palestinian state.

..well, that is a problem of Israel or any other colonial invader's own making. When uninvited you take over land where other people are already living, you tend to inherit them.

It may run counter to Lieberman's idea of a pure Jewish fatherland, but at least you would have an Israeli Palestinian population who have expressed some sort of allegiance by voting to stay within Israel.

>>The main obvious issue would be territorial continuity. If this is not clear enough, consider the current fragmented state of the West Bank.

...I think even Lieberman is willing to evacuate some of the remote Zionist colonies, thus making a future Palestinian state more contiguous.The said colonists have only themselves to blame. No-one asked them to colonize the West Bank.

I doubt any Israeli Jews (I did write maybe..not an essential part of the plan) would want to become Palestinian citizens anyway, if the IDF said we can't protect you unless you live within Israel. I don't suppose by the same token that Israel would be offering citizenship to Palestinians whose land was confiscated to build Jewish only colonies on.

>>"If things dont work out, dual citizens can move back to live where they prefer"

..by that I mean: it could work both ways. The border would stay where it was fixed according to a referendum. But if Palestinians individually don't like living in Israel, they could move to Palestine, and vice versa.

My plan would be an improvement on Lieberman's, in that Palestinians would have a say in their future, and thus a sense of ownership, not something imposed on them by others...which has been the whole history of Palestine so far.

There would of course still the serious issues of Jerusalem, (water and gas) resources, the economy, security and compensation for dispossessed Palestinians [and Israeli Jews from Arab countres?]. But agreed upon borders could be one small piece of the peace jigsaw sorted.

[GeorgesAbitbol]

Great work Bibi.

Now there is no more room for discussion : having Lieberman who lives in a west bank settlement and want to retake it fully for Israel show what kind of politic this government wants. For sure not a solution!

"...and want to retake it fully for Israel..."

Second (or third?) time you post the same. Most of what Lieberman advocates does not include Israel taking over the whole West Bank. He got not interest in making demographics more problematic than they are.

Well that's not what he says!

And speaking about repetition, why you worry about a speck in other's eye when you have a log in your own ?

Itquite funny to read that the people defending this government seem to be quite upset the future defense minister will send to trash everything they want to hang about the goodwill of Israel government...

Edited May 27, 2016 by GeorgesAbitbol

[Morch]

Great work Bibi.

Now there is no more room for discussion : having Lieberman who lives in a west bank settlement and want to retake it fully for Israel show what kind of politic this government wants. For sure not a solution!

"...and want to retake it fully for Israel..."

Second (or third?) time you post the same. Most of what Lieberman advocates does not include Israel taking over the whole West Bank. He got not interest in making demographics more problematic than they are.

Well that's not what he says!

And speaking about repetition, why you worry about a speck in other's eye when you have a log in your own ?

Itquite funny to read that the people defending this government seem to be quite upset the future defense minister will send to trash everything they want to hang about the goodwill of Israel government...

If Lieberman did recently speak in favor of Israel "retaking it fully" ("it" being the West Bank), I must have missed it. A link supporting this statement would be appreciated. The OP itself, however, indicates otherwise - "...proposed shifting regional borders to rid Israel of its Arab citizens and incorporate West Bank settlements into Israel". It does not make his views more palatable, but there is no need to misrepresent them either. There is enough confusion, ignorance and misconceptions when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, no need to add more.

If the last remark was a personal, again off mark. Not a fan of Lieberman, Netanyahu and the current Israeli government, nor did I claim they are in the goodwill business. I would say it is quite ironic that the ones welcoming Lieberman's appointment are either those supporting Israeli right wing views, and those seeing it as an unexpected boon to the Palestinian propaganda effort. If he follows on some of his policies (and again, methinks it more problematic domestically then with regard to the Palestinians) the damage done will harm all parties involved. Easier to make the assertion that the PR points are worth it when one's safely behind a screen.

[Morch]

Sorry thread full.

Morch wrote...

Barking up the wrong tree, not a fan of Lieberman or his views. As posted previously, his motivations and means are questionable.

To put some things in perspective, though - the "land grab" alluded to amounts to territorial exchanges. Granted, not on an equal basis, but not as one sided as presented. Further, neither side, nor the inhabitants (of whatever affiliation) of said areas were much thrilled with these ideas. Swearing allegiance by itself is not a unique concept, but again, obviously there are issues with Lieberman's rendering of the idea.

One of the things Lieberman objects to is that while the future Palestinian state would be almost entirely ethnically homogeneous, Israel would be retain a significant Arab (or rather Palestinian) minority. Thus, in effect, this does not create a two state reality, but one Palestinian state, and a mixed Jewish/Palestinian state. The terminology and means he wishes to apply are disturbing, but the analysis is essentially correct.

In reference to your "just a thought" - The main obvious issue would be territorial continuity. If this is not clear enough, consider the current fragmented state of the West Bank. Second, the Palestinian Constitution does not provide for Israelis (more to the point Israeli Jews) to become Palestinian citizens. If memory serves, there were polls taken among relevant Arab communities in Israel, which did not indicate much enthusiasm for changing sovereigns.

As for the "If things dont work out, dual citizens can move back to live where they prefer" bit - just the sort of social experiment mentality disconnected from relevant realities of the conflict and the Middle East. Things-not-working-out tend to be sorted in less than amicable fashion in them parts. Not spelling out just what Things-not-working-out implies is just the flip side of glossing over the basic lack of trust and willingness from both parties.

>>To put some things in perspective, though - the "land grab" alluded to amounts to territorial exchanges. Granted, not on an equal basis, but not as one sided as presented.

...that's your usual obfuscatory way of saying a land grab is not a land grab. If exchanges are not on an equal basis, and one side ends up with more than they started with, then its a land grab, and would be a future source of contention.

>>One of the things Lieberman objects to is that while the future Palestinian state would be almost entirely ethnically homogeneous, Israel would be retain a significant Arab (or rather Palestinian) minority. Thus, in effect, this does not create a two state reality, but one Palestinian state, and a mixed Jewish/Palestinian state.

..well, that is a problem of Israel or any other colonial invader's own making. When uninvited you take over land where other people are already living, you tend to inherit them.

It may run counter to Lieberman's idea of a pure Jewish fatherland, but at least you would have an Israeli Palestinian population who have expressed some sort of allegiance by voting to stay within Israel.

>>The main obvious issue would be territorial continuity. If this is not clear enough, consider the current fragmented state of the West Bank.

...I think even Lieberman is willing to evacuate some of the remote Zionist colonies, thus making a future Palestinian state more contiguous.The said colonists have only themselves to blame. No-one asked them to colonize the West Bank.

I doubt any Israeli Jews (I did write maybe..not an essential part of the plan) would want to become Palestinian citizens anyway, if the IDF said we can't protect you unless you live within Israel. I don't suppose by the same token that Israel would be offering citizenship to Palestinians whose land was confiscated to build Jewish only colonies on.

>>"If things dont work out, dual citizens can move back to live where they prefer"

..by that I mean: it could work both ways. The border would stay where it was fixed according to a referendum. But if Palestinians individually don't like living in Israel, they could move to Palestine, and vice versa.

My plan would be an improvement on Lieberman's, in that Palestinians would have a say in their future, and thus a sense of ownership, not something imposed on them by others...which has been the whole history of Palestine so far.

There would of course still the serious issues of Jerusalem, (water and gas) resources, the economy, security and compensation for dispossessed Palestinians [and Israeli Jews from Arab countres?]. But agreed upon borders could be one small piece of the peace jigsaw sorted.

Back to the convenient "thread full" thing?

As far as I am aware, Lieberman's plan was never intended as a unilateral move. Not that I support it, but fail to see it as a land grab if achieved via negotiations. Not all negotiations relating to territorial exchanges uphold exact areas transferred to be crucial. There are additional consideration that can make specific areas of value to a side, other than size (resources, population, location, history etc...). As for "future source of contention" - pretty much any agreed solution reached would leave many people unhappy with the result. This could be applied to almost any detail in a future agreement.

With regard to the second point - no issues then with the Palestinian vision of only Palestinian citizens? Objections only raised when applied to Israel? The usual double standards.

Guess the issue of territorial continuity was misunderstood. While Lieberman's plan does address the problem, and does call for Israel to evacuate isolated settlements, your "just a thought" plan does not account for the possibility of areas within Israel getting fragmented through the suggested localized referendum. Some might see it as a sort of "poetic justice", but personally, seems like a recipe for further hardship all around. The current fragmentation of the West Bank is enough of a problem, replicating it next door will not do any good.

As a point of reference, most Arab citizens of Israel, while supporting the national aspirations of the Palestinians, and often defining themselves as Palestinians, do not actually wish to be ruled by anything resembling the current Palestinian leadership, to a degree that "even" Israel is preferable. This does not imply that they are happy with things in Israel, but more a realization that the alternative discussed is not an improvement.

Granted, not many Israeli Jews would be interested to live under Palestinian rule. However, citing the IDF not being able to vouch for their safety is a curious choice of argument. It is apparently assumed that while the safety of Jews in the future state of Palestine will be forfeit, the same does not apply for Palestinian (or Arab, if one prefers) citizens of Israel. Again, them double standards at work.

Oh...so "if things don't work out" essentially implies full freedom of choice and movement for Palestinians only. That would be after all those words pouring scorn on Israeli policies, and going on about equal rights. Re double standards.

Lieberman's plan is morally problematic, in addition to being unpopular with both sides and involved communities. Your "just a thought" "plan" is not really an improvement as much as applying other morally questionable values to the same flawed scenario. The sheer level of disconnect it implies with the realities of the conflict is staggering. And that from someone posting thousands of posts on these topics.

This is the Middle East. Asserting that solutions perhaps applicable to evolved Western societies could be utilized is either fantasy or ignorance. There is no goodwill, there is no trust, there is less rationality and more zealotry. The values are different, the stakes are different. Simply translating the conflict as to fit Western concepts and ideas will not do.

[Morch]

This article pretty much covers all bases when it comes to agenda in this appointment. Well written Mr Bradley Klapper and to all that had input into this article. You have source well and summed it all up perfectly.

Basically it is a manoeuvre to scuttle international efforts, even those of Israel's closest and most staunch supporter, of peace in the region. Why ? Because Israel [and rightly so] will get the short straw after any peace deals and have to make massive concessions. Concessions that they will NEVER agree with. Plain,simple and fact.

"Basically it is a manoeuvre to scuttle international efforts,..."

Netanyahu expressed his rejection of the French peace initiative prior to Lieberman's party joining the coalition. As such, Lieberman is not central to the rejection, but simply enhances it. The main motivation was Netanyahu's wish to expand his narrow and shaky coalition. This was partially why he held on to five (if I count correctly) different ministerial portfolios since the current government's term. The added bonuses of removing a popular potential rival, hushing differing views by generals, and creating infighting among the opposition are extras. The same goes for bolstering the hawkish elements in the coalition with regard to the French peace initiative.

[dexterm]

Sorry thread full.

Morch wrote...

Barking up the wrong tree, not a fan of Lieberman or his views. As posted previously, his motivations and means are questionable.

To put some things in perspective, though - the "land grab" alluded to amounts to territorial exchanges. Granted, not on an equal basis, but not as one sided as presented. Further, neither side, nor the inhabitants (of whatever affiliation) of said areas were much thrilled with these ideas. Swearing allegiance by itself is not a unique concept, but again, obviously there are issues with Lieberman's rendering of the idea.

One of the things Lieberman objects to is that while the future Palestinian state would be almost entirely ethnically homogeneous, Israel would be retain a significant Arab (or rather Palestinian) minority. Thus, in effect, this does not create a two state reality, but one Palestinian state, and a mixed Jewish/Palestinian state. The terminology and means he wishes to apply are disturbing, but the analysis is essentially correct.

In reference to your "just a thought" - The main obvious issue would be territorial continuity. If this is not clear enough, consider the current fragmented state of the West Bank. Second, the Palestinian Constitution does not provide for Israelis (more to the point Israeli Jews) to become Palestinian citizens. If memory serves, there were polls taken among relevant Arab communities in Israel, which did not indicate much enthusiasm for changing sovereigns.

As for the "If things dont work out, dual citizens can move back to live where they prefer" bit - just the sort of social experiment mentality disconnected from relevant realities of the conflict and the Middle East. Things-not-working-out tend to be sorted in less than amicable fashion in them parts. Not spelling out just what Things-not-working-out implies is just the flip side of glossing over the basic lack of trust and willingness from both parties.

>>To put some things in perspective, though - the "land grab" alluded to amounts to territorial exchanges. Granted, not on an equal basis, but not as one sided as presented.

...that's your usual obfuscatory way of saying a land grab is not a land grab. If exchanges are not on an equal basis, and one side ends up with more than they started with, then its a land grab, and would be a future source of contention.

>>One of the things Lieberman objects to is that while the future Palestinian state would be almost entirely ethnically homogeneous, Israel would be retain a significant Arab (or rather Palestinian) minority. Thus, in effect, this does not create a two state reality, but one Palestinian state, and a mixed Jewish/Palestinian state.

..well, that is a problem of Israel or any other colonial invader's own making. When uninvited you take over land where other people are already living, you tend to inherit them.

It may run counter to Lieberman's idea of a pure Jewish fatherland, but at least you would have an Israeli Palestinian population who have expressed some sort of allegiance by voting to stay within Israel.

>>The main obvious issue would be territorial continuity. If this is not clear enough, consider the current fragmented state of the West Bank.

...I think even Lieberman is willing to evacuate some of the remote Zionist colonies, thus making a future Palestinian state more contiguous.The said colonists have only themselves to blame. No-one asked them to colonize the West Bank.

I doubt any Israeli Jews (I did write maybe..not an essential part of the plan) would want to become Palestinian citizens anyway, if the IDF said we can't protect you unless you live within Israel. I don't suppose by the same token that Israel would be offering citizenship to Palestinians whose land was confiscated to build Jewish only colonies on.

>>"If things dont work out, dual citizens can move back to live where they prefer"

..by that I mean: it could work both ways. The border would stay where it was fixed according to a referendum. But if Palestinians individually don't like living in Israel, they could move to Palestine, and vice versa.

My plan would be an improvement on Lieberman's, in that Palestinians would have a say in their future, and thus a sense of ownership, not something imposed on them by others...which has been the whole history of Palestine so far.

There would of course still the serious issues of Jerusalem, (water and gas) resources, the economy, security and compensation for dispossessed Palestinians [and Israeli Jews from Arab countres?]. But agreed upon borders could be one small piece of the peace jigsaw sorted.

Back to the convenient "thread full" thing?

As far as I am aware, Lieberman's plan was never intended as a unilateral move. Not that I support it, but fail to see it as a land grab if achieved via negotiations. Not all negotiations relating to territorial exchanges uphold exact areas transferred to be crucial. There are additional consideration that can make specific areas of value to a side, other than size (resources, population, location, history etc...). As for "future source of contention" - pretty much any agreed solution reached would leave many people unhappy with the result. This could be applied to almost any detail in a future agreement.

With regard to the second point - no issues then with the Palestinian vision of only Palestinian citizens? Objections only raised when applied to Israel? The usual double standards.

Guess the issue of territorial continuity was misunderstood. While Lieberman's plan does address the problem, and does call for Israel to evacuate isolated settlements, your "just a thought" plan does not account for the possibility of areas within Israel getting fragmented through the suggested localized referendum. Some might see it as a sort of "poetic justice", but personally, seems like a recipe for further hardship all around. The current fragmentation of the West Bank is enough of a problem, replicating it next door will not do any good.

As a point of reference, most Arab citizens of Israel, while supporting the national aspirations of the Palestinians, and often defining themselves as Palestinians, do not actually wish to be ruled by anything resembling the current Palestinian leadership, to a degree that "even" Israel is preferable. This does not imply that they are happy with things in Israel, but more a realization that the alternative discussed is not an improvement.

Granted, not many Israeli Jews would be interested to live under Palestinian rule. However, citing the IDF not being able to vouch for their safety is a curious choice of argument. It is apparently assumed that while the safety of Jews in the future state of Palestine will be forfeit, the same does not apply for Palestinian (or Arab, if one prefers) citizens of Israel. Again, them double standards at work.

Oh...so "if things don't work out" essentially implies full freedom of choice and movement for Palestinians only. That would be after all those words pouring scorn on Israeli policies, and going on about equal rights. Re double standards.

Lieberman's plan is morally problematic, in addition to being unpopular with both sides and involved communities. Your "just a thought" "plan" is not really an improvement as much as applying other morally questionable values to the same flawed scenario. The sheer level of disconnect it implies with the realities of the conflict is staggering. And that from someone posting thousands of posts on these topics.

This is the Middle East. Asserting that solutions perhaps applicable to evolved Western societies could be utilized is either fantasy or ignorance. There is no goodwill, there is no trust, there is less rationality and more zealotry. The values are different, the stakes are different. Simply translating the conflict as to fit Western concepts and ideas will not do.

No issues at all with West Bank and Gaza Palestine for only Palestinians in a two state solution. That's not double standards. The Palestinians were there before the Zionist interlopers. You don't reward the invader. Israeli Palestinians were also there before the Zionist colonialists arrived, so they have a right to stay where they are.

Yes, I take your point about possible isolated pockets of Palestinians within Israel who don't want to be there. Thank you. That is why I wanted comments on my suggestion. I was actually suggesting a way that Lieberman could implement part of his plan; if it leads to a permanent peace ....all well and good. But the difference is that the Israeli Palestinians who want to leave Israel will be doing so of their own choice, and they will have an option if they change their mind. Maybe none of them wants to go...up2them. Ask them; don't tell them.

As I have said previously I regard a two state solution as an interim measure only...maybe decades long..but eventually the two peoples will live together anyway in the same country. Natural transmigration. Every colonial enterprise where a foreign race or religion has tried to rule over the resident majority has failed. Jews are in a minority in Palestine, so they will eventually be absorbed and assimilated.

Yes full freedom of choice for Israeli Palestinians with dual nationality only to live where they like. And so it should be. They are the ones who have been invaded not the other way around. That would be the price Lieberman must pay if any part of his plan is to be successful.

You seem to pour scorn on my just a thought plan. That's all it was and that's how plans evolve, as opposed to your ideally a two state solution, but it's all in the too hard basket. You seem to have a problem for every solution.

Yes, of course, there is a lack of trust and goodwill at the moment but things change. It was only a few short years before Mandela became President of S Africa, or `the collapse of communism that skeptics were saying: never in my lifetime.

Edited May 27, 2016 by dexterm

[Morch]

Sorry thread full.

Morch wrote...

Barking up the wrong tree, not a fan of Lieberman or his views. As posted previously, his motivations and means are questionable.

To put some things in perspective, though - the "land grab" alluded to amounts to territorial exchanges. Granted, not on an equal basis, but not as one sided as presented. Further, neither side, nor the inhabitants (of whatever affiliation) of said areas were much thrilled with these ideas. Swearing allegiance by itself is not a unique concept, but again, obviously there are issues with Lieberman's rendering of the idea.

One of the things Lieberman objects to is that while the future Palestinian state would be almost entirely ethnically homogeneous, Israel would be retain a significant Arab (or rather Palestinian) minority. Thus, in effect, this does not create a two state reality, but one Palestinian state, and a mixed Jewish/Palestinian state. The terminology and means he wishes to apply are disturbing, but the analysis is essentially correct.

In reference to your "just a thought" - The main obvious issue would be territorial continuity. If this is not clear enough, consider the current fragmented state of the West Bank. Second, the Palestinian Constitution does not provide for Israelis (more to the point Israeli Jews) to become Palestinian citizens. If memory serves, there were polls taken among relevant Arab communities in Israel, which did not indicate much enthusiasm for changing sovereigns.

As for the "If things dont work out, dual citizens can move back to live where they prefer" bit - just the sort of social experiment mentality disconnected from relevant realities of the conflict and the Middle East. Things-not-working-out tend to be sorted in less than amicable fashion in them parts. Not spelling out just what Things-not-working-out implies is just the flip side of glossing over the basic lack of trust and willingness from both parties.

>>To put some things in perspective, though - the "land grab" alluded to amounts to territorial exchanges. Granted, not on an equal basis, but not as one sided as presented.

...that's your usual obfuscatory way of saying a land grab is not a land grab. If exchanges are not on an equal basis, and one side ends up with more than they started with, then its a land grab, and would be a future source of contention.

>>One of the things Lieberman objects to is that while the future Palestinian state would be almost entirely ethnically homogeneous, Israel would be retain a significant Arab (or rather Palestinian) minority. Thus, in effect, this does not create a two state reality, but one Palestinian state, and a mixed Jewish/Palestinian state.

..well, that is a problem of Israel or any other colonial invader's own making. When uninvited you take over land where other people are already living, you tend to inherit them.

It may run counter to Lieberman's idea of a pure Jewish fatherland, but at least you would have an Israeli Palestinian population who have expressed some sort of allegiance by voting to stay within Israel.

>>The main obvious issue would be territorial continuity. If this is not clear enough, consider the current fragmented state of the West Bank.

...I think even Lieberman is willing to evacuate some of the remote Zionist colonies, thus making a future Palestinian state more contiguous.The said colonists have only themselves to blame. No-one asked them to colonize the West Bank.

I doubt any Israeli Jews (I did write maybe..not an essential part of the plan) would want to become Palestinian citizens anyway, if the IDF said we can't protect you unless you live within Israel. I don't suppose by the same token that Israel would be offering citizenship to Palestinians whose land was confiscated to build Jewish only colonies on.

>>"If things dont work out, dual citizens can move back to live where they prefer"

..by that I mean: it could work both ways. The border would stay where it was fixed according to a referendum. But if Palestinians individually don't like living in Israel, they could move to Palestine, and vice versa.

My plan would be an improvement on Lieberman's, in that Palestinians would have a say in their future, and thus a sense of ownership, not something imposed on them by others...which has been the whole history of Palestine so far.

There would of course still the serious issues of Jerusalem, (water and gas) resources, the economy, security and compensation for dispossessed Palestinians [and Israeli Jews from Arab countres?]. But agreed upon borders could be one small piece of the peace jigsaw sorted.

Back to the convenient "thread full" thing?

As far as I am aware, Lieberman's plan was never intended as a unilateral move. Not that I support it, but fail to see it as a land grab if achieved via negotiations. Not all negotiations relating to territorial exchanges uphold exact areas transferred to be crucial. There are additional consideration that can make specific areas of value to a side, other than size (resources, population, location, history etc...). As for "future source of contention" - pretty much any agreed solution reached would leave many people unhappy with the result. This could be applied to almost any detail in a future agreement.

With regard to the second point - no issues then with the Palestinian vision of only Palestinian citizens? Objections only raised when applied to Israel? The usual double standards.

Guess the issue of territorial continuity was misunderstood. While Lieberman's plan does address the problem, and does call for Israel to evacuate isolated settlements, your "just a thought" plan does not account for the possibility of areas within Israel getting fragmented through the suggested localized referendum. Some might see it as a sort of "poetic justice", but personally, seems like a recipe for further hardship all around. The current fragmentation of the West Bank is enough of a problem, replicating it next door will not do any good.

As a point of reference, most Arab citizens of Israel, while supporting the national aspirations of the Palestinians, and often defining themselves as Palestinians, do not actually wish to be ruled by anything resembling the current Palestinian leadership, to a degree that "even" Israel is preferable. This does not imply that they are happy with things in Israel, but more a realization that the alternative discussed is not an improvement.

Granted, not many Israeli Jews would be interested to live under Palestinian rule. However, citing the IDF not being able to vouch for their safety is a curious choice of argument. It is apparently assumed that while the safety of Jews in the future state of Palestine will be forfeit, the same does not apply for Palestinian (or Arab, if one prefers) citizens of Israel. Again, them double standards at work.

Oh...so "if things don't work out" essentially implies full freedom of choice and movement for Palestinians only. That would be after all those words pouring scorn on Israeli policies, and going on about equal rights. Re double standards.

Lieberman's plan is morally problematic, in addition to being unpopular with both sides and involved communities. Your "just a thought" "plan" is not really an improvement as much as applying other morally questionable values to the same flawed scenario. The sheer level of disconnect it implies with the realities of the conflict is staggering. And that from someone posting thousands of posts on these topics.

This is the Middle East. Asserting that solutions perhaps applicable to evolved Western societies could be utilized is either fantasy or ignorance. There is no goodwill, there is no trust, there is less rationality and more zealotry. The values are different, the stakes are different. Simply translating the conflict as to fit Western concepts and ideas will not do.

No issues at all with West Bank and Gaza Palestine for only Palestinians in a two state solution. That's not double standards. The Palestinians were there before the Zionist interlopers. You don't reward the invader. Israeli Palestinians were also there before the Zionist colonialists arrived, so they have a right to stay where they are.

Yes, I take your point about possible isolated pockets of Palestinians within Israel who don't want to be there. Thank you. That is why I wanted comments on my suggestion. I was actually suggesting a way that Lieberman could implement part of his plan; if it leads to a permanent peace ....all well and good. But the difference is that the Israeli Palestinians who want to leave Israel will be doing so of their own choice, and they will have an option if they change their mind. Maybe none of them wants to go...up2them. Ask them; don't tell them.

As I have said previously I regard a two state solution as an interim measure only...maybe decades long..but eventually the two peoples will live together anyway in the same country. Natural transmigration. Every colonial enterprise where a foreign race or religion has tried to rule over the resident majority has failed. Jews are in a minority in Palestine, so they will eventually be absorbed and assimilated.

Yes full freedom of choice for Israeli Palestinians with dual nationality only to live where they like. And so it should be. They are the ones who have been invaded not the other way around. That would be the price Lieberman must pay if any part of his plan is to be successful.

You seem to pour scorn on my just a thought plan. That's all it was and that's how plans evolve, as opposed to your ideally a two state solution, but it's all in the too hard basket. You seem to have a problem for every solution.

Yes, of course, there is a lack of trust and goodwill at the moment but things change. It was only a few short years before Mandela became President of S Africa, or `the collapse of communism that skeptics were saying: never in my lifetime.

Coming from a someone who often self praises ideals, a humanistic approach and the pursuit of absolute justice - quite an odd choice. Double standards are double standards, not much room to maneuver when one is committed to absolutes. Guess that much in the same way, the whole "you don't solve one problem by creating another" is also dependent on variables, rather than being a firm principal. But again, nothing out of the ordinary when it comes to these topics, the usual moral acrobatics.

I pour scorn, and will continue to do so, on any half cooked notion of solving the conflict. Especially those showcasing the author's lack of even the most basic acquaintance with the realities at hand. The Middle East is not the West. The underlying assumptions that the sort of peaceful co-existence enjoyed by Western nations could simply be copy pasted to an altogether different situation, is absurd. To imagine that firm, long lasting peace will be achieved without an traversing an arduous path, but simply come about through theoretical concepts and daydreams is preposterous. The same goes for them long term visions of Israel (or Israelis) being absorbed by its locality - a quick look at the Middle East says the chances for things not being settled peacefully is far more likely.

Once again, and for the record - Lieberman's plan was never popular with Arab citizens of Israel, specifically those who were to be effected. They had no inclination to be ruled by the current Palestinian leadership. I do not recall any Israeli government actually warming up to it either, nor did the PA seem thrilled with the idea. So basically, it was never a realistic option, hence nothing much to "improve" upon.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Morch

[dexterm]

@Morch

1st paragraph. Unintelligible verbosity.

2nd paragraph. Perhaps Israel should stop promoting itself as a Western style modern democracy if it isn't one. All criticism but as usual no constructive alternatives.

3rd paragraph.

Once again, and for the record - Lieberman's plan was never popular with Arab citizens of Israel, specifically those who were to be effected [sic]. They had no inclination to be ruled by the current Palestinian leadership. I do not recall any Israeli government actually warming up to it either, nor did the PA seem thrilled with the idea. So basically, it was never a realistic option, hence nothing much to "improve" upon.

Lieberman's plan was unpopular because he was unilaterally planning to revoke Israeli Palestinians rights without asking them.

Glad you used the past tense in the paragraph, because I am looking to the future.

[Morch]

@dexterm

The usual clumsy deflections.

On the off-chance you're not being intentionally obtuse, let's try again: condoning application of double standards dependent on agenda, is not compatible with claiming to hold a position stressing idealistic values. The former is relativist, the latter absolute. Even more ridiculous considering the over-used "just" (as in "justice"), not to mention riling against the double standards on a parallel topic.

Israel not living up to the ideals of Western democracy is not even debated. Relative to its neighborhood and prevailing conditions, its a democracy, albeit an imperfect one. Many of these around. Be that as it may, nothing to do with airing half cooked plans disconnected from reality. As for "constructive alternatives", not indulging in fantasies seems pretty constructive to me. Other things I find constructive are defusing hatred and tensions between the sides, for example, by avoiding the inflammatory rhetoric often found on these topics. At this point, most of the "constructive" is to be found in details and tone, not high on everyone's priority list.

Lieberman's plan was unpopular as living under the PA's rule would (and still is) amount to worsening conditions as far as Arab citizens of Israel go. This applies to both civil rights and economical situation. As pointed out on previous occasions, playing keyboard warrior differs from how involved people consider things. Not all are on board with the "sacrifice for the cause" approach.

As for "looking to the future" - sure thing. That must explain the repeated allusions to the past when it suits. On the same note, predicting far future developments is tricky even under the best of conditions. Attempting it with the volatile Middle East is folly. Having a rather limited experience and a fixated mindset do not help.

[JingerBen]

If Netanyahu and/or his wife are indicted on serious corruption charges, Lieberman will become even more a force to be reckoned with.

He will be the new face of Israel for everybody to see.

[Galactus]

Avigdor Lieberman is a discriminating bigot and not a good news to get him into the coalition again.

it means juts more lives lost and a longer way to peace.

[Morch]

If Netanyahu and/or his wife are indicted on serious corruption charges, Lieberman will become even more a force to be reckoned with.

He will be the new face of Israel for everybody to see.

To quote from your earlier post - "balderdash".

Lieberman currently heads a rather small party. Said party is small also due a string of corruption related investigations, which left its reputation and front line cadre in tatters. Lieberman himself was the subject of a lengthy investigation, of which he managed to wiggle out.

If Netanyahu will be forced to step down, then the PM's replacement will temporarily fill his place. There is currently no one appointed to the post, so the government will have to appoint one. The chances of Lieberman getting the post are slim. Either way, it is a temporary measure, supposedly leading to new general elections.

[dexterm]

@dexterm

The usual clumsy deflections.

On the off-chance you're not being intentionally obtuse, let's try again: condoning application of double standards dependent on agenda, is not compatible with claiming to hold a position stressing idealistic values. The former is relativist, the latter absolute. Even more ridiculous considering the over-used "just" (as in "justice"), not to mention riling against the double standards on a parallel topic.

Israel not living up to the ideals of Western democracy is not even debated. Relative to its neighborhood and prevailing conditions, its a democracy, albeit an imperfect one. Many of these around. Be that as it may, nothing to do with airing half cooked plans disconnected from reality. As for "constructive alternatives", not indulging in fantasies seems pretty constructive to me. Other things I find constructive are defusing hatred and tensions between the sides, for example, by avoiding the inflammatory rhetoric often found on these topics. At this point, most of the "constructive" is to be found in details and tone, not high on everyone's priority list.

Lieberman's plan was unpopular as living under the PA's rule would (and still is) amount to worsening conditions as far as Arab citizens of Israel go. This applies to both civil rights and economical situation. As pointed out on previous occasions, playing keyboard warrior differs from how involved people consider things. Not all are on board with the "sacrifice for the cause" approach.

As for "looking to the future" - sure thing. That must explain the repeated allusions to the past when it suits. On the same note, predicting far future developments is tricky even under the best of conditions. Attempting it with the volatile Middle East is folly. Having a rather limited experience and a fixated mindset do not help.

No double standards. I am not going to apologize for or justify Zionism in any way, as you seem to feel I am obliged to do. Just as I would not have given any leeway or parity or moral equvalence to Nazism or S African apartheid either.

If anyone has made Israel's immediate (and I would argue beyond) neighborhood tough, it is of Israel's own doing.

The rest of your post is simply arrogance, and the usual "it's all in the too hard basket" to consider any proposals even the OP Lieberman's

[Morch]

@dexterm

The usual clumsy deflections.

On the off-chance you're not being intentionally obtuse, let's try again: condoning application of double standards dependent on agenda, is not compatible with claiming to hold a position stressing idealistic values. The former is relativist, the latter absolute. Even more ridiculous considering the over-used "just" (as in "justice"), not to mention riling against the double standards on a parallel topic.

Israel not living up to the ideals of Western democracy is not even debated. Relative to its neighborhood and prevailing conditions, its a democracy, albeit an imperfect one. Many of these around. Be that as it may, nothing to do with airing half cooked plans disconnected from reality. As for "constructive alternatives", not indulging in fantasies seems pretty constructive to me. Other things I find constructive are defusing hatred and tensions between the sides, for example, by avoiding the inflammatory rhetoric often found on these topics. At this point, most of the "constructive" is to be found in details and tone, not high on everyone's priority list.

Lieberman's plan was unpopular as living under the PA's rule would (and still is) amount to worsening conditions as far as Arab citizens of Israel go. This applies to both civil rights and economical situation. As pointed out on previous occasions, playing keyboard warrior differs from how involved people consider things. Not all are on board with the "sacrifice for the cause" approach.

As for "looking to the future" - sure thing. That must explain the repeated allusions to the past when it suits. On the same note, predicting far future developments is tricky even under the best of conditions. Attempting it with the volatile Middle East is folly. Having a rather limited experience and a fixated mindset do not help.

No double standards. I am not going to apologize for or justify Zionism in any way, as you seem to feel I am obliged to do. Just as I would not have given any leeway or parity or moral equvalence to Nazism or S African apartheid either.

If anyone has made Israel's immediate (and I would argue beyond) neighborhood tough, it is of Israel's own doing.

The rest of your post is simply arrogance, and the usual "it's all in the too hard basket" to consider any proposals even the OP Lieberman's

Going on about Israel wishes to preserve its Jewish majority, while seeing no issues with the future Palestinian state envisaged as being for Palestinians only, is double standards. Bait all you like, shove in all the usual catchphrases making up your agenda, and it would still be double standards.

Israel is not responsible for all the realities which make the Middle East into the inhospitable neighborhood it is. Nonsense blanket statements without much to them are not an argument. May I point out that assuming a single party to be the sole power behind a complex political situation is among the hallmarks of conspiracy theories.

Arrogance would be posting thousands of propaganda posts referencing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and still be expected to be taken seriously. There was no reference to a "too hard basket", which is just another of your usual baiting phrases. Lieberman's plan is neither central to the OP nor (as far as I recall) was ever seriously discussed on any negotiations between the sides. As such, it makes little sense to debate its merits, and all the more so with regard to your own version.

There is no shortage of unworkable proposals floating around, Rather than attempting to address the conflict in its entirety, something which often leads to further setbacks, efforts should be concentrated on making it possible for sides to relate to each other with less "baggage". Half-cooked over-elaborate plans and inflammatory rhetoric are not helpful,

[Galactus]

some recent news regarding Avigdor Lieberman. clearly shows what kind of person he is. he is a bigot.

Even Israeli citizens, academics and politicians accuse him as a 'Jewish ISIS'

With such guys coming into power again, It looks like Israel is not looking for peace in the future and they want to steal more Palestinian land and such guys like Avigdor Lieberman is needed to support such actions instead of Bibi.

so Avigdor is in again just bc they need a mouthpiece so Bibi can stay clear.

'An Israeli politician and academic have called for an investigation to be launched into the comments of Israeli foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman after he called for the “beheading” of Arab-Israelis who were not loyal to the state of Israel'

http://www.newsweek.com/lieberman-jewish-isis-says-israeli-politician-after-beheading-comments-312644

Edited May 31, 2016 by Galactus