Culture, Global

The Other Lieberman is Even More Scary

Unlike our state-side Leiberman who begs a redefinition of “Democrat,” the ha’aretz version is even scarier, begging a redefinition of “Israeli” in all positive meanings of the title. “A racist of the first degree, who advocates transfer of Arabs from not just the West Bank but Israel itself,” said Marcia Freedman about Lieberman, former MK, at a recent Brit Tzedek event in New York City.
Avigdor Lieberman, founder and leader of the far-right Yisrael Beiteinu Party, is being brought into Ehud Olmert’s coalition government.
Elsewhere in the government:

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert spoke yesterday in front of a conference in Tel Aviv and said that it is impossible that a leader of a nation who is member of the United Nations who is calling for the annihilation of another people, to be accepted as a legitimate leader.

Full article here. (Italics added.)
And how does this not conflict with Avigdor’s divisive political rhetoric?

6 thoughts on “The Other Lieberman is Even More Scary

  1. This coalition is about two desparate men who needed one another. And it isn’t pretty.
    Olmert needed one of Netanyahu and Lieberman because Peretz can’t control his own party (and will need both if Labor splits over this, but it probably won’t, because they’re desparate, too).
    Lieberman desparately wanted in before Bibi got in.

  2. I’m a bit tied as to which one of the two I’d least prefer to see in power. If Avigdor shares the Deputy Prime Minister title with Peres, who gets to be PM if Ehud (God forbid) disappears.

  3. The political nonsense is missing the point that Lieberman is the Israeli version of the far-right parties in Europe. He should have been chucked aside (and that *is* possible – look at the Arab parties), and ignored forever.

  4. I thought Israel had laws barring racists from being part of the government — wasn’t Kach banned for this reason? Maybe it would be more efficient to simply call a fascist a fascist?

  5. meanwhile, Israel is based on racism.
    How dare selective politcal definitions of “racism” (as opposed to nationhood?)
    be used to quiet popular political ideas? I don’t think I’ve ever heard Lieberman OR Kahane advocate genocide except defensively (loophole!) or as a the alternative to a longer drawn out conflict, more injurious to both sides than separation, a less conciliatory version of the “security” wall.
    The word racist is so ridiculous to use in a context like this, as if any of the acknowledgement of groups in racial, religious, or tribal terms wasn’t the norm in all Israeli politics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.