[Freemanlist2] Prof. Efraim Inbar - Lieberman and the Naked Emperor
Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
bernards at sbcglobal.net
Thu Jan 13 12:58:36 CST 2011
FREEMAN CENTER BROADCAST - JANUARY 13, 2010
For Zion's sake I will not hold my peace
and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest." Isaiah 62.
FREEMAN CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES
P.O. Box 35661 * Houston, Texas 77235-5661
Phone or Fax: 713-723-6016 * E-mail: bernards at sbcglobal.net
OUR WEB SITE (URL): < www.freeman. org >< /FONT>
THE MACCABEAN ONLINE: URL:http:// www.freeman. org/online. htm
Freeman Center Blog http://www. freeman.org/ serendipity /
Ignorance Is Weakness - Know The Truth
Self-Inflicted Ignorance Is Suicide
The Freeman Center Is A Defense Against Ignorance
This is the perfect time to make a gift of
EDUCATION FOR JEWISH SURVIVAL
The Freeman Center has been your source of 'pull no punches'
discussion and education about the HARSH REALITIES
facing Israel and the Jewish Peope for almost 20 years.
PLEASE KEEP OUR VOICE STRONG
It is a Mitzvah!!
Lieberman and the Naked Emperor
by Prof. Efraim Inbar
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 125, January 13, 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman takes a blunt approach
to politics, one that is often met with resistance at home and abroad. But
despite his not-very-diplomatic style, Lieberman's views on issues like the
"peace process" and the Israel-Turkey relationship are representative of a
large majority of the Israeli public, and his assessments are often right on
We are inundated with critical reports of the strident statements made by
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. He is, reportedly, damaging
Israel’s international image. Obviously, political correctness is not one of
his main concerns. It has to be acknowledged, however, that Lieberman's
not-very-diplomatic style, while uncomfortable, also involves more than a
To a certain extent, Lieberman is playing domestic politics, trying to
position himself as leader of the Right. Issues he has raised, such as the
oath of allegiance, the conversion bill, and foreign funding of human rights
NGOs indeed smack of populism and are simplistic remedies to complex
problems. And his bluntness has repeatedly forced Prime Minister Binyamin
Netanyahu, a very eloquent representative of the Jewish state, to issue
clarifications in order to distance himself from the enfant terrible of
Israeli politics. Netanyahu prefers the image of a statesman and a
Yet, Lieberman is often telling the naked truth. Let's consider his
"provocative" and "irresponsible" statements on the Palestinians and the
The chances of reaching a comprehensive agreement in the near future with
the Palestinians, within 12 or 36 months, are indeed nil, as Lieberman has
pointed out. The Palestinian Authority is not willing to make any
concessions in peace negotiations on Jerusalem or on refugees. It rejects
recognition of Israel as a Jewish nation-state. Lieberman is correct also in
pointing out that the PA lacks any legitimacy to close a deal with Israel.
Abu Mazen’s corrupt regime relies on Israeli bayonets to defend it from
Hamas. This is what Lieberman has said, and he is correct in his assessment.
Moreover, his views reflect the sober assessment of a large majority of
Israelis. Even large swaths of the Israeli Left agree that there is no
Palestinian partner for a full peace.
So why is it so terrible to tell the truth?
Similarly, Lieberman’s evaluation of the behavior of the current Turkish
government is right on the mark. Turkey, under Prime Minister Tayyip
Erdogan, has not missed an opportunity to pick a fight with Israel over the
past two years, and there is nothing Jerusalem can do but wait for better
times. Erdogan-led Turkey is not interested in good relations with Israel,
primarily because under his helm Turkey is distancing itself from the West
and displaying a greater Islamic coloration in its foreign policy.
Anti-Semitic sentiments also fuel the hostility toward Israel. Israelis
agree with Lieberman’s refusal to be a "punching bag for Turkey." Thus, it
makes no sense to apologize and pay compensation to those who sent IHH
terrorists to help Hamas-ruled Gaza.
Actually, Lieberman’s assertion that it is Turkey which owes Israel an
apology seems more logical. This probably makes sense to most Israelis, who
witnessed the brutal treatment of Israeli naval commandos on the Turkish
ship at the hands of so-called “peace activists.”
Similarly, Lieberman's promotion of a loyalty oath is well in synch with
majority Israeli opinion. Israeli Arab leaders have become increasingly
vocal and violent in their support for Palestinian irredentism – and Israeli
Jews want to see them checked. Most Israelis instinctively feel, as well,
that the Ultra-Orthodox-controlled Rabbinate is much too narrow and
unwelcoming in its approach to Russian-Israelis who want to convert to
Another bingo for Lieberman.
Lieberman’s attack on left-wing NGOs being fifth columns is also striking a
responsive chord among many Israelis that are fed up with Israel’s use of
force being portrayed systematically as a human rights violation. After all,
the IDF is making consistently great efforts to behave admirably moral.
The truth is often unpleasant. As a result, the seemingly noble and
relentless search for an unavailable peace formula is preferred by many to
acceptance of the bad news that there is no chance to end the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict soon. Incredibly generous Israeli concessions
by Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert did not bring about peace because of the
Palestinians' insatiable appetite.
Nevertheless, entrenched formulas and paradigms are difficult to discard.
The inertia of the “peace process” and the sunken costs are not conducive to
taking a fresh look at a 17-year-long failure to bridge the differences
between Israelis and Palestinians.
Similarly, the realization that diplomatic maneuvers or clever formulas
cannot fix relations with a Turkey that has chosen to side with radical
Islam goes against unfounded optimism. The possibility that ignoring reality
is more dangerous than pursuing unrealistic policies does not always
Lieberman is not off the mark in pointing out that the flow of foreign money
to Israeli NGOs is a serious issue that needs to be squarely dealt with.
This is necessary particularly because some of these NGOs are blatantly
biased with a clear Israel-demonization agenda hidden behind a human rights
This Israeli government understands the depressing reality, though a cool
assessment will probably dictate going along with falsehoods to please the
world. After all, telling the truth might push Israel into greater
isolation. Lying is what the world expects of Jerusalem, and in the short
run at least, such lying probably best serves Israel’s interests. In the
longer run, however, political correctness may prove extremely costly.
Lieberman is having none of this. He is enjoying the role of the boy who
exposed the sham behind the Emperor’s new clothes. But in contrast to the
naïve boy in that well-known fable, Lieberman is a shrewd politician. The
emphasis on naked truth suits his search for votes. After all, truth has
certain appeal among Israeli voters.
This is Israel’s dilemma. Who represents the better and wiser diplomatic
course: Netanyahu or Lieberman?
Efraim Inbar is Professor of Political Studies at Bar-Ilan University and
director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. This article first
appeared in the Jerusalem Post newspaper on January 12, 2011.
BESA Perspectives is published through the generosity of the Greg
To Make a tax deductible contribution to the Freeman Center's
important educational work, mail check to address above
or go to our website www.freeman.org
to pay by credit card or paypal.
We need your help to continue our Zionist work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Freemanlist2