On his first day on the job, new Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has decided to declare that his nation's government is not bound by agreements made by the previous government, specifically the Annapolis agreement that Israel would continue to negotiate for a two-state solution with the Palestinians.
Apparently previous statements made by Lieberman that he now supported a two-state solution, probably designed to woo Kadima's Tzipi Livni into some kind of coalition deal, were untrue. So much for peace for Israel in the near future.
Lieberman's political philosophy is probably informed by his formative years as a barroom bouncer in the former Soviet Union and, after his arrival in Israel, as a Kahanist. He has previously floated a "two-state solution" by which Israel would cede sovereign territory, the population of which is mostly Arab, in exchange for those parts of the West Bank expropriated by Israel by the security barrier it has been building (which is mostly all-Jewish settlements). No one, not even the far, far right wing National Union party, takes this plan seriously.
But it's important to bear in mind, because it and his recent push for loyalty oaths from Israel's citizens (particularly its Arab citizens) indicates his vision for Israel's future: A Jewish state (albeit a secular one), in which the national minorities are never afforded full civil rights and may be ejected for perceived disloyalty.
And it's this regard (or disregard) for Arabs that Lieberman is bringing into the foreign ministry and putting on display on his first day. While stating later in his speech to the Knesset yesterday that he intended on keeping up relations with Egypt (notably Jordan was not mentioned — at least not in Yediot Ahronot's translated portions), he also made the following statements:
Those who think that through concessions they will gain respect and peace are wrong. It's the other way around; it will lead to more wars.
This is a tacit rejection of U.N. Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.
Those who want peace should prepare for war and be strong. There is no country that made concessions like Israel. Since 1967 we gave up territory that is three times the size of Israel. We showed willingness. The Oslo process started back in 1993 and to this day I have not seen that we reached peace.
Well, that first part is an old truism, a statement originally uttered during the decline of the Roman Empire. It's not necessarily a bad idea, but saber-rattling by the foreign minister on his first day of work isn't the best idea.
The rest of the above excerpt again shows a fundamental rejection of resolutions 242 and 338. The territory three times the size of Israel that he speaks of? That's the Sinai. Israel got peace for ceding that land, according to the 242 principles.
And why did Oslo fail, or at least seem at this point to have failed? Well, let's see: Prime Minister Rabin was assassinated in November 1995 by a man whose political philosophy is probably not so far away from Lieberman's own. Rabin's relatives said in the aftermath of his murder that they blamed Netanyahu's incitement at anti-Oslo rallies for Rabin's death more than they did anyone else.
And what happened next? Oh, yes: Bibi was elected Prime Minister.
I think we can chalk up the "failure of Oslo between November 1995 and May 1999 to Israel's right wing. Its failure in the last ten years was the result, yes, of Ehud Barak's miserable tenure as Prime Minister, but equally because of Ariel Sharon's fundamental rejection of Oslo, not to mention Palestinian rejectionism and terrorism.
So how do we deal with Lieberman and get the peace process rolling, provided a broker arises on the Palestinian side to process such a peace. Here's a modest proposal.
President Obama should stop, or severely curtail, the aid given to Israel until they show a willingness to negotiate a two-state solution.
This means several things.
First, Lieberman must be removed. If he takes his party with him by bolting the government, then fine. Someone at least willing to give lip service to Israel's prior commitments should replace him. Bibi won't lose his government if he loses Yisrael Beiteinu, and he may even be able to draw in Kadima at some point.
Second, and this is the more important point, Netanyahu must make a clear and public statement that he is committed to a two-state solution. This is a demand that Barak should have made of Bibi before throwing Labor's support behind this government, but he didn't. Netanyahu has said he supports peace, but he hasn't uttered the words "two-state solution" or changed his position (at least publicly) that any Palestinian state west of the Jordan River is unacceptable to him.
Third, settlements must be neither expanded nor built. Bibi has said he won't build new settlements, but he will expand existing settlements. While he continues to operate on that principle, he will have to do so without American aid, or at least not aid to the extent that Israel currently receives.
Yes, Israel may have to stay in a holding pattern regarding the Palestinians until the Hamas problem is resolved, one way or the other. But more deeply entrenching itself into the Palestinian Territories and rejecting peace in principle is not the way for Israel to play that waiting game.
And a last consideration: Will Obama be able to "get away" with putting big contingencies on aid to Israel? You bet he will. He hired Rahm Emanuel for several reasons, not the least of which is to probably be his pit bull if he has to get tough with Bibi. I don't think a man who has served as a volunteer civilian in the IDF during the First Gulf War, whose parents live in Israel, and whose father fought for the foundation of the state while Bibi's father rode a desk during that time can be called "anti-Semitic," "self-hating," or "anti-Israel."
But it would be funny for Lieberman and/or Netanyahu to give it a try.