Tel-Chai Nation

Some very appalling revelations have come up about Avigdor Lieberman, the head of the Yisrael Beiteinu party:

(IsraelNN.com) In a new book, former US Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk has dropped a potential political bombshell, revealing that Avigdor Lieberman, head of the Yisrael Beitenu party, once held secret talks on territorial concessions to the Palestinian Authority (PA) with one of Yasser Arafat's key advisers.

In addition, Indyk asserts that Lieberman told his PA interlocutor, Muhammad Rachid, that he was prepared to accept the wide-ranging concessions which then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak had offered to Arafat at the 2000 Camp David Summit.

[...]

Indyk's revelations could prove damaging to Lieberman, whose party is soaring in the polls in advance of Israel's February 10 elections, thanks in large part to his nationalist image among the public.

Irene Etinger, Avigdor Lieberman's spokeswoman, commented on Indyk's claim, "The facts quoted in the book are not true."

Political observers suggest that Lieberman and his party are now likely to come under increased scrutiny in the wake of Indyk's book, particularly in light of Lieberman's past statements on the issue of Jerusalem.

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.

It doesn't do much good to deny what Indyk is telling in his new book if Lieberman really did say those things back at the time. The Jerusalem Post also spoke about Lieberman's peculiar standings at the time. If transferring sovereignty to the PLO were in any ways to lead to terrorists gaining footholds for carrying out their operations, to say nothing of safe haven from Israeli authorities, that's exactly why it's dangerous to do what Lieberman's supporting.

Now I see why I would rather vote for the Likud today, and would strongly advise others to do the same.

Speaking of which, over at the Biur Chametz blog, the blogmaster is appalled at Lieberman for simultaneously fanning the flames of hate against the Arabs. Hmm. I think I can expand a little further on that: aside from the strange double-standard Lieberman's maintaining, where he's blowing it is if he doesn't make any clear distinctions between Arabs and Muslims, and if he's not willing to offer a helping hand to Christians who could be persecuted by the Islamofascists.

If that's the case, then Lieberman is guilty not only of bizarre double-standards, he's also guilty of lacking any sense of selflessness. And I think the lesson to be learned from how Sderot and Ashkelon have fallen victim to rocket attacks can and does apply strongly to Jerusalem as well.

So Lieberman is simply not a recommended candidate, for the very fact that he does weird moral equations and double-standards and fails to show he can be selfless and help innocents in need.

Update: Benjamin Netanyahu also spoke about Lieberman's double-standard at his speech the other day.

Labels: islam, Israel, jihad, political corruption, terrorism