Unfortunately the US is the last place on earth from which constructive reengagement on Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking is likely to emerge any time soon. Not only the dems are no better than the repubs in that regard but the MSM is useless.

Reading Eldar's piece in Haaretz, I thought to myself: no major US newspaper would ever publish such an op-ed. Instead we get the usual Friedman/Krauthammer racist crap: "why do arabs hate jews more than they love their children?"

Lieberman is the second most popular politician in Israel after... Bibi: A racist and a psychopath.

Lovely.

Liberals will never understand that you can't make peace with instransigent, genocidal enemies.

Instead we get the usual Friedman/Krauthammer racist crap: "why do arabs hate jews more than they love their children?"

Now this is a fascinating statement. The writer is making two claims here that invite some scrutiny. First, that saying "Arabs hate Jews more than they love their children" is racist. Second, that it is crap.

First of all, it's important to remember that it was neither Friedman nor Krauthammer that said this. It was, IIRC, Golda Meir. Second, the full text of the statement has a slightly different emphasis. Golda said, (again, IIRC), "There will be peace when Arabs love their children more than they hate the Jews." It is an extremely important and insightful thing to say. For it makes a case, in a particularly pithy way, that is (or rather should be) beyond dispute. That is, that throughout the whole history of the Arab-Jewish dispute in the middle east, the Arabs have never put peace high on their priority list. They have never embraced compromise. And they have never given up the romantic notion of vanquishing the Israeli foe.

But the statement was made in the 70s, so one could theoretically argue that with the "recognition" of Israel given by the PLO in the late 1980s as well as the Oslo peace process, that the Arabs had embraced the logic of compromise. And for a period of time in the early to mid 1990s, that's certainly the way it seemed. But as we look back on it, it seems nothing more than the triumph of hope over experience. Those of us who supported the Oslo peace process dismissed the crazy Likudniks who kept pointing out how Arafat was inciting hatred of Jews in the media. How he was running a corrupt kleptocracy. How terrorists were rounded up and then released depending on how much pressure was on. And so on. And yet we still believed. Until it became impossible to believe any more. In 2001, with a peace deal on the table, Arafat had the choice of countering with a different offer, breaking off the talks to regroup, or going to war. He chose war. And that was the moment when the scales fell from our eyes and we realized that with the choice of building a future (i.e. loving their children) or scratching the itch for violence (i.e. hating Jews), they made the choice which confirms the essential truth of Golda Meir's statement.

So it is hard to argue - although I'm sure some will - that the statement is "crap". It is empirically true. But is it racist? Well, I suppose if you were to argue that Arabs are born as violent psychopaths, then I guess it would be racist. But if Tom Friedman or Charles Krauthammer or anyone else has made that argument, I certainly don't remember seeing it. On the contrary, what most pro-Israel commentators usually argue is that Arabs are not inherently hate-prone. But their culture, like many others around the world (and like our own at various points in our history) is indeed riven by hate. Furthermore, they have leaders who are too weak to stand up to the hate and ameliorate it. That's the problem. Not that Arabs are racially inferior or genetically prone to primitive hatred.

How anyone can deny that hate pervades Arab culture, particularly among Palestinians, is one of the enduring mysteries. I suppose there are various ways of justifying the hate. But that the hate is there seems so obvious that it has to call into question the judgment of anyone who would object to someone pointing it out.

I don't know Lieberman and I don't know his politics well enough to make a judgement about him.

But I do have to dispute the view that Israel is permanently threatened with annihilation and genocide.

Let's get serious. There's no indication that the 20% of Israeli citizens who are Arabs pose a major security threat or undertake terrorist actions on any scale or anything. The majority of them seem to be good citizens. Now, unless someone can provide facts and figures to contradict that proposition, I'd have to call racism.

Egypt and Jordan have peace treaties with Israel. Egypt has not had a military conflict with Israel in 33 years. Jordan hasn't had a military conflict with Israel in 39 years. So forget about them.

Syria's last military conflict of any substance with Israel was 23 years ago. They have no oil money, their economy is barely limping along, they have poor relations with their other neighbors - Iraq and Turkey, they have no friends or allies, no major patrons, their army is hard pressed to police its own borders and their military technology is two or three generations obsolete and lacking spare parts. There is no one in the world, not even the most paranoid Israelis, who think Syria represents any serious threat to Israel. Indeed, Israel feels no need to negotiate the Golan heights, in part, because Syria is so impotent. So get over it.

In the neighborhood, Turkey isn't terribly hostile to Israel and the two countries have good relations. Iraq is now a basket case. Saudi Arabia is fully tolerant and the Saudi's and Persian Gulf states are more interested in making money than war. Pakistan is focused on Afghanistan and India. Indonesia couldn't even find Israel on a map. The Sudan is more interested in its civil war than Israel, and Chad is more interested in the Sudan's civil war. Somalia is trying to get out of its civil war. Eritreans hate Ethiopians, not Israel. Algerians are just tired of people with guns. Morocco is concerned with the Sahel and not Israel.

So where's the threat, LEL66? Are you worried that Kyrgryszistania is going to send an army across the borders of 18 countries to kick your ass?

Yes, Iran exists, a thousand miles away or so, and its hostile to Israel. Well, get in line, they don't like anyone. They've been hostile to the USSR, Saddam's Iraq, the Saudi's, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the United States, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, you name it. Christ, you could populate a football league with countries that Iran's on the outs with. So big fat hairy deal.

Nor is any of this likely to change any time, what with Israel being far and away the largest and most dominant military power in the region, and having a fleet of four hundred nuclear weapons with massive second strike capacity, tucked away for a rainy day. The odds of any state posing a military threat to Israel are nonexistent for the next thirty or forty years. Moreover, no state is even bothering to try.

So what's your big existential threat? What's your boogeyman?

Is it the Lebanon? Are you worried about a country 1/3 Israel's size sweeping you all out to the sea? Give me a break. So far as Lebanon goes, its been Israel that's been handing out the lions share of the killing and bombing. The result has been Sabra and Shattilla, 35,000 dead in an 18 year Israeli occupation, and another 1500 dead in Israel's latest war.

Is it Hezbollah? Well, gotta hand it to them, they've got quite an arsenal and they turned out to be dangerous fighters. But realistically, there are what... 5000 Hezbollah? Yeah, they're going to be marching on Tel Aviv any day now. Not! Hezbollah, as irritating as they may be, are not an existential threat.

Is it Hamas? Hard for them to be a threat when you have half their leadership in jail. How many of them are there? A few thousand? What are their arms? They aren't even as dangerous as Hezbollah. Irritating perhaps, they may even get a few people killed, but the aren't an existential threat, and you damned well know it.

Perhaps its because poor little Israel is all alone and isolated in the world. It's only got the ironclad support of the United States, the worlds only superpower. Who could rely on that. And as for other supporters... well, practically nothing, unless you counted France, Germany, Italy, Russia, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine etc. etc.

Israel stands where it is, it isn't going anywhere and there's nothing and no one that can challenge it.

Whatever security challenges Israel faces, annihilation and genocide are not among them.

Thank you for those well thought out and insightful comments. In particular, I compliment you on actually sticking to the point of this thread and not getting sidetracked in generic rants (something I myself cannot claim to have succeeded in).

Given that you have some insight into this, perhaps you could offer some further thoughts and information:

Lieberman's position is to deal with the Iranian nuclear threat, if I understand correctly. Does this mean that Olmert considers it a nonexistent problem that he can safely trap a potential troublemaker in, or a real threat? In short, is this wholly a matter of domestic politics?

If it is a real threat perception, does Lieberman's position signal a hard line? And if so, how hard? I'm worried about a pre-emptive Israeli nuclear attack on Iran as the worst case scenario.

If on the other hand, Lieberman's position is wholly domestic politics, with a minimum or non-serious threat perception, how much trouble could he cause? It strikes me that it would be in his interests to escalate the problem rather than resolve it?

I have not heard anything at all of the 'two dangerous IAF confrontations with the German blockade', and I'm not sure I understand the reference. The IAF is Israeli Air Force, correct? What the heck is the German blockade? Are the Germans blockading someone? Are the Germans blockading Lebanon? Why? Are the Germans being blockaded? From Lebanon? By Israel? Why? What were these incidents? How did they occur? Was there loss of life? Are they likely to recurr? I've heard of incidents between UN peacekeepers in Lebanon and IDF since the ceasefire, but have no details... are such incidents in fact occurring? Are they related to the incidents you refer too? Any light you could shed on this issue would be useful.

Finally, any links which would give us some insight into Lieberman's career and views would also be helpful.

Thank you muchly.

Brad, I just returned from Israel and I can attest that Jews hate arabs as much as the reverse. It's hatred at a visceral level on both sides. In my commentary, Israel, A Personal Journey I laid out examples of all the ugliness I saw. You don't even need to go to Israel - just read the talkback sections of the Jerusalem Post and Haartz.

Have you ever heard a speech by Lieberman? I have and even with my poor Hebrew and his mangled syntax I could understand that this man hates arabs and considers them dirty and sub-human. Don't fall for the crap I heard in Israel "that the arabs hated us first, so ours is just a reaction". Israeli hate is far more dangerous because they possess the bigger guns. Hatred is, what hatred does!!!!!

Oh I have no doubt that these days you can find all sorts of hate in Israel.  I wouldn't doubt that for a second.  It would take a stronger character than most people have to resist the temptation to hate a people who have wrought such destruction, countenanced the most depraved acts of barbarity and thrown away every chance for peace in the last 70 years.

But there's one big difference between Israeli hate and Palestinian hate: Israeli hate is conditional.  It will easily dissipate under changed circumstances.  Just think of how public sentiment changed after Anwar Sadat's trip to Jeruslaem and after the beginning of the Oslo peace process.  Sadat, who not four years before he came to Jerusalem was rallying his troops with blood-curdling talk of driving the Jews into the sea, was received with open arms by the very highest levels of the Israeli goverment.  Public opinion swung in favor of negotiation and peace.  In 2003, with the signing of the Oslo Accords, a similar phenomenon was observed.  There was widespread skepticism and revulsion against Arafat, but there was a solid majority in favor of negotiation and compromise.

The contrast with Arab attitudes could hardly be more stark.  Even when relations with the Arabs were at their sunniest, Arab governments refused to deal directly with the Israeli government.  In most Arab capitals, contacts with Israel were done in secret, or through third parties.  Arab media broadcast hate-filled speeches resurrecting every medieval anti-Semitic calumny imaginable.  And most importantly, Arabs still tolerated, or even continued to sponsor, terrorism.

Israeli hate is far more dangerous because they possess the bigger guns. Hatred is, what hatred does!!!!!

Actually, what's remarkable about Israel is how restrained they are, considering the level of hatred that the Arabs have brought on themselves.  Compare the levels of brutality shown by the Russians in Chechnya, the French in Algeria, the Japanese in China, and so on.  By contrast, Israel does not flatten whole cities. It does not condone extra-judicial killing or rampages by soldiers in relaliation for attacks.  It conducts house-to-house combat in hostile urban zones, probably the most dangerous sort of combat there is, rather than just carpet-bomb whole neighborhoods, the way the Russians did in Afghanistan or in Chechnya. 

But what's really obnoxious about your statement is the idea that hate motivates Israeli violence.  That is, there is a direct connection between Israeli hate and dead Palestinians the way there is between Arab hate and dead Israelis.  This is so patently absurd that I can only conclude that your own hate has simply clouded your judgment.  No one examining the conflict objectively could possibly draw such a conclusion.  Israeli soldiers don't set off bombs in crowded areas full of civilians in order to kill the maximum number of people.  You don't see Israeli citizens sneaking into Arab villages and mowing down whole families.  Or rather, the couple of times it's happened, there is such widespread revulsion at the act that you can only marvel at the stark contrast with the lionization of Palestinian suicide bombers.

My good friend Valdron will no doubt pop up and remind people that I'm a hater too.  And perhaps I'm like many Israelis in that my utter disgust with the Palestinians turns my rhetoric hateful.  Maybe.  But also like the vast majority of Israelis I can assert with complete confidence that not only do I not condone unnecessary violence, but I also would be willing to shake hands, break bread or do most anything else with an Arab that I saw as genuinely open.  I would be the first to lay down arms - verbal arms, that is - at the first sign of hope.  The contrast with most Arabs can be seen in the history of the last 70 years.

How anyone can deny that hate pervades Arab culture, particularly among Palestinians

"I imagine that if I were a Palestinian of the right age, I would, at some stage, have joined one of the terror organizations."

-- Ehud Barak

Why would he want to blow up the Aswan Dam?

As I understand it, the Aswan Dam is in Egypt and Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel?

In the event that the Aswan Dam was blown up, it would not directly or indirectly affect the military capacity of Egypt.

It would however result in thousands of deaths, I would assume. And it would shut down a significant portion of Egypts electricity and do substantial economic and physical damage.

In peacetime, such an action would amount to an act of terrorism.

In wartime, such an action would amount to a war crime.

Why does Lieberman want to blow up the Aswan dam?

In 1998, Lieberman was pissed off over Egypt's "support" for Arafat. There's another report that in 2001 he "told ambassadors from the former Soviet republics that if relations with Egypt continued heading south, Israel should bomb Egypt`s Aswan Dam"