How The Australian's foreign editor spins Israel's foreign minister:-
"Over the next year or two, probably for as long as it stays in office, there will be a sustained effort to demonise the Israeli Government of Benjamin Netanyahu. The speech last week by Netanyahu's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, in which he explicitly supported a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute [!] but was reported as if he had said the opposite, is a case in point." (Israeli leaders mislabelled by foes*, Greg (Jerusalem Prize) Sheridan, 9/4/09)
And what Lieberman actually says:-
"The international community has to 'stop speaking in slogans' if it really wants to help the new Israeli government work toward a solution to the Palestinian conflict... Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday... 'Over the last two weeks I've had many conversations with my colleagues around the world', he said... 'And everybody, you know, speaks with you like you're in a campaign: Occupation, settlements, settlers...' Slogans like these, and others Lieberman cited, such as 'land for peace' and 'two-state solution', were both overly simplistic and ignored the root causes of the ongoing conflict, he said... The path forward, he said, lay in ensuring security for Israel, an improved economy for the Palestinians, and stability for both. 'Economy, security, stability', he repeated. 'It's impossible to artificially impose any political solution. It will fail, for sure. You cannot start any peace process from nothing. You must create the right situation, the right focus, the right conditions'." ('World leaders must drop their slogans', David Horovitz, 24/4/09)
[*See my earlier post on the Sheridan/Lieberman love-in: Selling Lieberman, 15/4/09]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
There's a concerted effort to re-brand Leiberman by the usual pro-Israel hacks. No surprise that the terminally rambammed Greg Sheridan is leading the pack on Oz.
Though he has his work cut out for him, as you can see from this little review of Leiberman I did in 2006.
Is there a link to the full text of Liberman's comments?
Sorry, this is not on topic, but I wanted to draw attention to a current article in th New York Review of Books (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22664). The article rebutts an argument by two influential academics associated with the IDF who argue that the State has a responsibility to protect its soldiers (especially conscripts) even if it is at the cost of innocent civilians - all responsibility for the loss of civilian life lies with the 'terrorists'. This is an argument with which we are familiar, and which we recently observed in operation in Gaza.
The rebuttal does not challenge the argument directly, but points out that this position can only maintain any legitimacy if all civilians (regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or statehood) are treated the same. Thus, the IDF in Gaza should treat all civilians as if they are Israeli citizens. It is an argument I have long favoured for all war situations including, for example, when America bombs a place in an attempt to kill Al Quaeda officials, in the knowledge that civilians are likely to die or suffer. If applied, I believe it would be a valuable principle as it acknowledges the equal worth of all human beings.
http:www.jpost.com/servlet?Satellite?cid=1239710776127&pagename=JPost%2FJP...
Anon 1:40 While in general I agree with you, treating all human beings equally is the antithesis of Zionism.
Post a Comment