Misrepresenting Avigdor Lieberman

How many times have we heard the media smear Avigdor Lieberman? While ignoring the genocidal intentions of rejetionist terrorists such as Hamas and Hezbollah, the world is too busy focusing on Avigdor Lieberman. How many times have we heard that Lieberman is an anti-Arab racist? The fact is that he isn’t. I agree that he does say controversial stuff. Al Jazeerah called Lieberman “a Racist Settler Living on Usurped Palestinian Land”. It is in the “cross cultural understanding of Al Jazeerah”. What understanding does it being to call Lieberman that slanderous name? The only understanding it brings is how bad the slanderous accusations against Lieberman can get.

 The Atlantic Free Press called Lieberman a Fascist and a Nazi. The BBC also misrepresented one of Lieberman’s proposals. The anti-Israel propaganda site Electronic Intifada [EI] called Lieberman and his political party Yisrael Beiteinu Fascists. Robert Fisk, in the title of his Independent article called Lieberman “the worst thing that could happen to the Middle East”. My response is: Really? The Middle East is a region full of tyranny and corruption. It is where radical Islam, the backward interpretation of Islam, is powerful [as well as outside the Middle East, but let that pass]. Look at the barbaric killings by Middle Eastern terror groups, as well as the treatment of women, Homosexuals and minorities in Iran and Arab countries. And despite that, Fisk, the notorious anti-Israel propagandist, thinks that Lieberman is the worst thing that happened to the Middle East. That’s despite the fact that the Middle East already has a bloody history, even before Lieberman was born. Considering the bloody history that the Middle East had for centuries and how barbaric terrorist groups and regimes behave there, how can Lieberman be “the worst thing that could happen to the Middle East”?

I’m not saying that I agree with all of Lieberman’s positions. When it comes to Israeli politics, I’m from the Likud party, not from his Yisrael Beiteinu Party. I don’t totally support his agenda. Yes, he did make inflammatory statements. But at the same time, he is mostly just talk. For example, when he attempted to pass a bill in the Knesset that banned the commemoration of the Arab “Naqba”, the Israeli cabinet decided that it interfered with free speech and decided instead to change the bill to just not allowing the Israeli government funds to fund that propaganda event. It’s clear that Lieberman is not tying to promote any type of racism toward Arabs, but loyalty to the State of Israel. I don’t totally agree with his means, which I do admit are extreme. 

Lieberman is now the new bogeyman for anti-Israel propagandists. His inflammatory and out of context statements are used as a distraction to the root cause of the conflict, which is the terror war to eliminate Israel. It’s used as a constant distraction to the fact that Israel seeks peace and the fact that Israel’s peace offers have been repeatedly rejected. After all, while Zionist leader promoted the idea of peaceful co-existence and good neighborliness, Arab armies invaded Israel one day after its establishment. Around the time of [or during] the Arab invasion, then-Arab League Secretary General Azzam Pasha stated that the Arab invasion of Israel would be “a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” And during the Six day War, Arab leaders and media kept on constantly bragging about how the Arab states coalition [led by Egypt] would come to destroy Israel. Political cartoons showed skeletons. And what about the constant culture of violence promoted by Arab leaders including both the Hamas regime and the Fatah regime in the Palestinian Authority [PA]? Even Barack Obama stated that the incitement must stop.

Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the Hezbollah terrorist group, stated,”If all the Jews gather in Israel, it would save us the trouble of going after them worldwide”. Look at what the Hamas charter says about Jews. Yet, despite the genocidal intentions that’s promoted by Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist groups as well as by the terror regimes including those in Tehran and Damascus, much of the world focuses instead on Lieberman and say that he is racist, while they are at the forefornt in pressuring Israel to “negotiate” with  genocidal terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. They end up whitewashing those groups. For all of Lieberman’s inflammatory remarks, it is clear that Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and other terror groups and regimes pose a far bigger threat than Lieberman, who, unlike them, is willing to accept the two-state solution.

Does Lieberman make controversial points? Of course. This article will not analyze them. Lieberman and his political party does get into controversies with Arab MKs. Lieberman ’s problem with many Arab MKs is that they idolize and/or legitimize Israel’s terrorist enemies such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria. His concern there is legitimate. For some Arab MKs do that. Arab MKs have made inflammatory statements of their own. Lieberman and his political party does go into extremes to promote loyalty to the state, not toward any racist sentiment towards Arabs.