Powered by WebAds

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Et tu Avigdor?

Former Clinton and Bush negotiator Martin Indyk has written a book on our region called "The End of the Peace Process." Arutz Sheva reports that the book claims that Yisrael Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman met with a senior aide to the then Fatah leader Yasser Arafat and said that the Right could live with Ehud Barak's Camp David offer to the terrorists: turning over 95% of Judea and Samaria to the 'Palestinians.'

Here's the page from Indyk's book:
Lieberman's campaign is disputing the account in the book.
Irene Etinger, Avigdor Lieberman's spokeswoman, commented on Indyk's claim, "The facts quoted in the book are not true."
But Arutz Sheva reports that this is not a new story:
As Israel National News reported previously, in October 2007 Lieberman came under fire for suggesting at a cabinet meeting that Israel should divide Jerusalem and transfer various neighborhoods within the city to PA control. In The Jerusalem Post's coverage of Lieberman's willingness to divide Jerusalem, a senior Likud official said, "He crossed a line that cannot be crossed and we are shocked by the way he has zigzagged between Right and Left."

At that time, the Yisrael Beitenu platform, publicized on its website, stated "Unless there is a partition between the Arab residents of metropolitan Jerusalem and its Jewish residents, Israel will find itself with an additional 200,000 Arab Israelis who will turn Jerusalem into a city with an Arab majority. Of course, the addition of such a large number of Arabs to Israel has general demographic importance."

The platform further said, "Neighborhoods like Jebel Mukaber, a-Ram and others can go to 'Palestinian sovereignty."

Those of you outside Israel, aren't you amazed that candidates for the Knesset are willing and often able to fool people regarding where they stand on the most basic issues that affect our existence here? That's yet another consequence of the absurd system where you vote for a party and not for an individual. No one is directly accountable.


At 11:54 AM, Blogger NormanF said...

David Ben Gurion wanted a constituency system in Israel to make MKs accountable to voters rather than subservient to the party bosses. That has never been adopted in Israel since the party bosses would lose much of their influence over those running on the party slates. Israel would get far better quality people in the Knesset if they had to represent voters instead of being beholden to the party machine. Israelis deserve genuine representation. But don't hold your breath waiting for the electoral system to ever be reformed.

At 12:01 PM, Blogger NormanF said...

And since no one is directly accountable, public opinion counts for little with Israeli politicians. Israel's government is a self-perpetuating oligarchy legitimated by the facade of an election. Its more like the Soviet nomenklatura system in which power is centralized in the hands of a few powerful people. Israel is not a representative democracy and it does not even pretend to give the people a real voice in the country's affairs. That is why nothing of substance really changes between elections.

At 5:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Unless, Norman, a major change takes place within the most popular party and those elected within want such change to take place.

At 7:29 PM, Blogger NormanF said...

Shy Guy, you couldn't have said it any better. The last people to be in contact with reality are Israel's politicians.

At 8:18 AM, Blogger Editor said...

Indyk may have been funding "Peace" Now when he was U.S. ambassador to Israel; more here on that, and on his & Brookings / CFR plans to help Obama slice up Israel, give away the Golan...


Post a Comment

<< Home