Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is a racist, an ultra-nationalist, and at times an all-around national embarrassment. But he might be onto something.
A longtime advocate for Soviet immigrants in Israel, Lieberman (nicknamed Yvette) rose to political prominence by translating the country’s million-strong bloc of Russian speakers into a base for his right-wing Yisrael Beitenu party. Polarizing to the core, Lieberman taps into the wellspring of fervent nationalism on Israel’s secular right while drawing the ire of liberals and religious sectarians.
My first taste o
f Avigdor Lieberman’s place in Israeli culture took place 30,000 feet up in the air, on the entertainment console of a standard El Al 747. Somewhere between parodies of Hamas and Haredim, the brilliant political satire Eretz Nehederet panned to a Vaderesque scene of Yvette at the podium.
His Hebrew inflected with Russian nasality, the politician announced that he was throwing Binyamin Netanyahu and Tzipi Livni to the dogs, stripping Arabs of their citizenship (this one’s actually not entirely a joke), choosing Madonna over Shakira on the radio, and replacing the internet with “YvetteNet”.
In short, not the kind of leader I like to see in power in the Middle East – or for that matter, anywhere. But like my encounter with Lieberman on the airplane entertainment console, much of the Foreign Minister’s image in the Western media is made of simple caricature. We’re taught by the mainstream to dismiss Avigdor Lieberman just like we’re taught to dismiss Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
But sometimes, the fringe types get it right. First of all, racist or not – Lieberman has unequivocally supported a two-state solution since well before Netanyahu and crew signed on to the idea.
Moreover, tactless or not – Lieberman makes no secret of the failure of the latest US-mediated attempt to force Israeli-Palestinian peace on unrealistic terms, nor does he care to assign guilt. As of this writing, Obama’s much-heralded talks haven’t come to bear, leaving heads of state Netanyahu and Abbas to point fingers at one another for refusing to go the distance.
In rare form for a foreign minister, Yvette has very publicly promulgated a “Plan B” in the case that nothing breaks the standstill. Left-leaning Ha’aretz writes that
“Plan B is aimed at avoiding a situation of diplomatic stagnation while also skirting the conflict’s core issues … [Lieberman] believes there is no chance of reaching a final-status agreement in the coming years, especially on the issues of Jerusalem and refugees.”
Gloomy, but who could disagree? Citing the illegitimacy of the Palestinian government and the fractiousness of Israel’s ruling coalition, Lieberman makes a compelling case. Plan B would entail further security cooperation between Israeli and the Palestinian Authority, an expansion of Palestinians’ freedom of movement, and a plan to increase the Palestinian GDP to $20,000 per capita. Only then, he argues, will both sides have genuine incentive to come to the table.
Lieberman’s Plan B introduces to the dialogue an element that Obama, Netanyahu, and Abbas have ignored altogether: reason. Peace is a fine aim – but why force a final status agreement now if it’s just not tenable the way things are?
And should we not listen if the man speaking truth to power happens to be racist? Unfortunately, the world community has already answered in the affirmative. In light of the Road Map’s failure, they’d be wise to reconsider.
As for this writer: on Plan B, I’m with Yvette.
