Log In | Register
Two weeks ago, Ehud Olmert added the Yisrael Beiteinu party to his coalition in the Knesset. He was widely criticized for this, as many of Yisrael Beiteinu's political positions are diametrically opposed to Olmert's stated goals of giving away much of Israel to terrorists in the hope that this will appease them and cause them to lay down their weapons. (Not to mention that Yisrael Beiteinu is against the entire platform of the Labor party who is #2 in the coalition).
So why did everyone accept Yisrael Beiteinu? Because currently there is a very weak coalition. Any of the parties involved can break up the coalition and cause new elections at a moments notice, for any reason. Olmert, whose sole concern is (not the security of Israel but rather) to maintain his personal hold on political power, needed Yisrael Beiteinu to shore up the ranks. He knows very well (as does Labor) that in the event of early elections any time in the near future, his party would be relegated to the gutter, and that just would not do.
So they sucked it up, sold out and invited in Avigdor Lieberman and his gang.
Since then, I have seen lots of criticism and name calling of Yisrael Beiteinu from many quarters. They have been called racist, fascist, pro-settler, anti-worker, pro-religious, anti-religous and much more. The New York Times, summing up the position held by many who are still under the delusion that Olmert's plan of giving away lots of land in exchange for nothing will result in peace (apparently they slept through the whole war in Lebanon and the ongoing conflicts in Gaza) wrote the following in an anonymous editorial published on October 25, entitled "The Wrong Partner in Israel":
Badly weakened by criticism of his conduct of this summer's inconclusive war in Lebanon, Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, has chosen to make an unwise and damaging trade-off. Bringing the pro-settler Israel Beiteinu party into his governing coalition reinforces his vulnerable parliamentary majority. But it makes it virtually impossible for Mr. Olmert to carry out the partial West Bank withdrawal program he ran on just seven months ago.
(Here we come to the meat of the issue). Lieberman read what the NY Times had to say (which is very much representative of the current world-view held by the Western media) and responded with a letter to the editor with A New Road for Israel:
Your editorial got it wrong.
The Middle East peace process has failed miserably, and trying to breathe new life into an already defunct process is not the way to go.
Israel needs a new direction. I suggest that we redefine our goals and focus on bringing security and stability to the Middle East instead of setting our sights on an unrealistic, unattainable fantasy.
The declared missions of Hamas and Hezbollah are not to expel Israel from Lebanon or Gaza but to eradicate all Jews from Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem, and until they achieve that goal, they will not lay down their arms.
Israel is where the war on terror started. Sadly, we have had to stand alone for many decades in the face of unrelenting attacks on our Western ideas and values of freedom and democracy.
After the terror attacks of 9/11, Madrid in 2004, London in 2005 (and the list goes on), the world knows better.
That's why old thinking, regardless of how well intentioned, simply won't work.
Thirteen years is long enough to determine that the peace process has failed.
It is time to go back to the drawing board, re-evaluate the goals of the peace process and start anew.
Although there are many things about Lieberman's policies that I disagree with, I must say that having a politician in Israel who will actually admit out loud that Hamas is only interested in destroying Israel and that the current policy of appeasement held by the Left-wing government is no good is a very positive change. Although Olmert has brought him in in order to firm up his hold on the government, the entrance of Yisrael Beiteinu into the coalition is just one more sign that the current political leadership in Israel is overdue for change, and is indicative of the direction that this change will be when it eventually comes.
