Spiegle interviews Avigdor Lieberman and keeps pointing the finger at Israel.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Foreign Minister, the week the Palestinians finally agreed to hold new peace negotiations, your government announced plans to build 1,600 more housing units in a Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem. You have provoked not only the Palestinians, but also your most important ally. Why?
Lieberman: We didn’t provoke anybody. I hear all the condemnations of Israel regarding so-called East Jerusalem. In the same week 60 people were killed in Pakistan in terror attacks. In every country around us there is bloodshed and tension. But everybody prefers to criticize Israel. I am waiting for the day when the German Bundestag debates the violation of human rights in Saudi Arabia.
SPIEGEL: But we are speaking to the Israeli foreign minister, not the Saudi one.
Lieberman: To put all the blame on Israel is hypocrisy. We are the only democracy in the Middle East. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict represent maybe 3 percent of all the conflicts in the region. Members of the United States Congress and US Senators tell us that, in their visits to the Gulf countries, Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Jordan, their Arab counterparts only very briefly mention the Palestinians, and that it is pure lip service. Ninety-five percent of the time they warn about the Iranian threat.
SPIEGEL: But at the moment everybody is speaking about Israel. The US is blaming your government for undermining the peace process and cancelled a visit of its special envoy George Mitchell.
Lieberman: Even between the best of friends mistakes and misunderstandings can happen. We never promised to stop building in Jerusalem. But the announcement during the visit of US Vice President Joe Biden was a mistake — a bureaucratic mistake of the building committee in charge.
SPIEGEL: So you are only criticizing the timing but not the plan to expand existing settlements?
Lieberman: You must understand: It is not settlements. Sixty-five percent of the Jewish population of Jerusalem live in new neighborhoods that we started to build after the Six-Day War in 1967.
SPIEGEL: Even the Americans regard them as settlements. They lie beyond the ‘67 borders and that is a problem.
Lieberman: They lie beyond the ‘67 borders, but they are not small villages, but municipal neighbourhoods with tens of thousands of residents.
SPIEGEL: So your problem is even bigger!
Lieberman: It’s not a problem, it’s an integral part of our capital. We are not ready to negotiate about Jerusalem.
SPIEGEL: On the one hand you are criticizing the Palestinians for setting pre-conditions, on the other hand you yourself refuse to talk about such a controversial core issue like Jerusalem.
Lieberman: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a speech at Bar-Ilan University, in which he recognized for the first time the two-state solution. That was a difficult decision for us; don’t forget, this is a right-wing government. Secondly, we diminished the number of roadblocks and improved the access and movement for the Palestinians. By doing so, we created economic growth in the Palestinian cities of 8 percent. Thirdly, we undertook a moratorium in the settlements …
SPIEGEL: … to which you don’t adhere: Just recently, Defense Minister Ehud Barak has given permission for 112 new apartments in the West Bank settlement of Beitar Illit.
Lieberman: Within one year we made many concessions in advance, but despite that the whole world says: “OK, that’s good, but you must deliver more.”
SPIEGEL: The US is now demanding further gestures from Israel following the crisis over the Jerusalem settlements. Will you deliver?
Lieberman: Within one year we have made many gestures towards the Palestinians. We expect the Americans to put pressure on the Palestinians to stop anti-Israeli activities in the international arena. The Palestinians have to withdraw their law suits against Israeli officers, stop the boycott of Israeli goods and all incitement. What incentives do we have for agreeing to further compromises?
SPIEGEL: Does the prospect of signing a peace treaty with the Palestinians mean nothing?
Lieberman: First of all we want security. The international community is making a strategic mistake. You cannot impose peace. First you have to provide security and prosperity, then you can bring about a comprehensive solution.
SPIEGEL: So in your view the negotiations with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are useless?
Lieberman: No. We have to keep the political process alive. Talks are better than nothing. The problem is that we don’t know whom Abbas represents. His Fatah party lost the elections in 2006. In 2007, Hamas took over power by force in the Gaza Strip.
SPIEGEL: Nineteen years after the peace process started in Madrid with indirect talks, you are again leading “proximity talks.” US Special Envoy Mitchell wants to commute the five kilometers between Jerusalem and Ramallah. Why does this have to be so complicated?
Lieberman: We were for direct talks from the beginning, whether in Jerusalem or Ramallah. It is the Palestinians who object to it. And they feel strengthened because the West constantly speaks about the settlements.
SPIEGEL: Do you think the Americans are naïve?
Lieberman: I don’t know whether they are naïve. I believe in facts, and they are: Despite the settlements, we signed two peace agreements — one with Egypt and one with Jordan. And although both Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert were ready to evacuate most of the settlements and withdraw to the ‘67 border, the Palestinians refused to sign. With the Oslo agreements we gave up half of the West Bank …
SPIEGEL: … It wasn’t you, but rather the leftist government of then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
Lieberman: Yes, I was against it and I am sorry to say that I was right. For 16 years we made concessions, but the Palestinians have only rejected them. And this despite the fact that on the Israeli side there were all these nice guys: Rabin, Peres, Barak, Olmert, Sharon. Not such bad guys like me …
SPIEGEL: Sharon, a nice guy?
Lieberman: He vacated the settlements in the Gaza Strip.
SPIEGEL: Why do you need the settlements at all?
Lieberman: First of all, Judea and Samaria are the birthplace of our nation since the days of the Bible. But the settlements are also important for our security.
SPIEGEL: The settlements? Do they not actually endanger your security?
Lieberman: No, the settlements around Jerusalem, for example, serve like a fence for us.
SPIEGEL: But you have already built a wall that separates Jerusalem from the West Bank.
Lieberman: The settlements are like a second security ring, we need them. But we are ready to negotiate about parts of them.
SPIEGEL: You live in a settlement yourself: Nokdim, south of Bethlehem.
Lieberman: And I said I am ready to give it up. But I have to be sure that there is a partner on the other side who is able to deliver. From our experience there is no partner and no results
SPIEGEL: Perhaps Israel has simply not offered enough?
Lieberman: There is a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of this conflict. It started as a national conflict between two people over one piece of land. But it developed into a religious conflict. It is a clash of civilizations which you cannot solve with a territorial compromise.
SPIEGEL: Israel’s motives are also partly religious, recently your government declared the tomb of the biblical patriarch Abraham in Hebron a “Zionist heritage”. However, it is also a holy site for Muslims.
Lieberman: Hebron was the first Jewish city, King David started our nation from there. We have not altered the status quo of the tomb of Abraham, Muslims have free access to the mosque. This kind of tolerance does not exist on the Muslim side. Last week Hamas called for a “day of rage,” because we opened the Hurva synagogue in the Old City of Jerusalem, which was destroyed in 1948.
SPIEGEL: So what is your solution?
Lieberman: I do not see a solution at the moment. We should concentrate on managing the conflict. Do you see a solution in Afghanistan? In Iraq?
SPIEGEL: In Afghanistan less, in Iraq more.
Lieberman: If the West failed in so many parts of the world, you cannot expect that the conflict in our corner, of all things, is solvable. You cannot stop an Islamist tsunami by building a small island somewhere in the ocean. The biggest problem is the aggressive influence of Iran.
SPIEGEL: The United Nations Security Council is currently debating new punitive measures against Iran. China and Russia have already announced that they oppose “crippling sanctions”. Without them, is it still possible to prevent Iran from building the nuclear bomb?
Lieberman: The problem is not only Russia or China, but also India, Turkey and others. But it would be enough to have tough sanctions from the West like the EU and the US and also Japan, Australia and Canada. That would suffocate the Iranian nuclear program.
SPIEGEL: Is Germany doing enough in your view?
Lieberman: Germany is playing a very positive role. During my last visit, I felt for the first time that the German government understands that tough sanctions are necessary. But I am afraid that disagreements and a lack of political will within the international community could prevent real sanctions.
SPIEGEL: Will there be a military strike then?
Lieberman: I don’t think that Israel should take responsibility for this issue. But we are not taking any options of the table.
SPIEGEL: What is the bigger danger for Israel: a nuclear Iran or Teheran’s support for Hamas and the Lebanese Hezbollah?
Lieberman: The biggest danger is the indecisiveness of the international community. Iran is threatening the whole world. It is not coincidental that they do not celebrate an “Independence Day,” but the “Day of the Islamic Revolution.” Revolutionaries always try to export their revolution, that was the case with the Bolsheviks and also with Che Guevara. Therefore, we see Iranian activities in the whole world: in Africa, in South America and of course in the Middle East: with Hamas, Hezbollah or Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq. They are all proxies of Iran.
SPIEGEL: And that’s why Hamas weapons dealer Mahmoud al-Mabhouh had to be killed by the Mossad in Dubai?
Lieberman: You must have seen too many James Bond movies. I also saw the video of the Dubai police on TV, but there are is no proof whatsoever.
SPIEGEL: All the evidence points to Israel: The agents used identities of Jews who immigrated to Israel from Britain and Australia.
Lieberman: We are cooperating with Britain and Australia in the investigations. They sent police inspectors to Israel.
SPIEGEL: So you are saying it was not the Mossad?
Lieberman: We are fighting the terror every day. We try, despite everything, to remain a democracy with clear rules. I expect more understanding about our problems in the world.
SPIEGEL: One of the alleged killers used a German passport which he received on the claim that his parents were Holocaust survivors. The German Federal Prosecutor opened an investigation on charges of murder and spy activity. Will Israel answer a German request for help in this investigation positively?
Lieberman: We will assist as much as we can. We have very close cooperation between Germany and Israel, on all levels.
SPIEGEL: There is irritation within the German foreign intelligence service, the BND, because Israel killed a Hamas guy while the BND was negotiating on Israel’s request with Hamas over the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit.
Lieberman: We appreciate all your efforts in the case of Gilad Shalit.
SPIEGEL: Within the BND it is said that the Israeli governent backtracked from an agreed prisoner exchange at the last minute.
Lieberman: I am not commenting on that. We will do everything we can to close this highly sensitive chapter.
SPIEGEL: There seems to be a good chemistry between you and German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle. You smoked a cigar together in Jerusalem.
Lieberman: Westerwelle is a very serious politician. I think he represents Germany with dignity.
SPIEGEL: Most of the Germans have a different opinion. They think, Westerwelle behaves more like the leader of the opposition than a foreign minister. Why are you always perceived as the bad guy?
Lieberman: People can choose between the sweet lie or the bitter truth. I say the bitter truth, but many people don’t want to hear it.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Foreign Minister, we thank you for this interview.
For your interests, the following comments from Israpundit:
Lieberman handled himself extremely well. I like him.
Comment by Ted Belman — March 22, 2010 @ 4:26 pm
Bingo. The greatest danger is not what some will do; it has always been that some will do anything. It’s what some won’t do to stop them. In this case, the international community is not going to confront terrorism or stop Iranian nukes. It will be Israel or no one. Only after a mega “man made disaster” will any action be taken, and even then, it probably won’t be good. It’s all about politics and power these days.
Comment by RandyTexas — March 22, 2010 @ 5:01 pm
but Moshe Feiglin would have done much better.
lieberman’s problem is that he essentially shares the west’s values and axioms. therefore he has no answer to many of spiegel’s repoaches.
Moshe Feiglin is 100% Jew. he has a Jewish answer to every of esaw’s tricks.
Comment by Tar Yag — March 22, 2010 @ 5:11 pm
the west is as indecisive as they were in the 1930ies and 1940ies!!! in both instances ther were NOT indecisive, the were complices of hitler. 90% of europeans sympathised with hitler and allied with him. britain and the u.s. were complices, too: the “appeasment” was a euphemism for “go on finish the work with the Jews”. this is manifest in the fact that the brits and amis did not destroy the railways going to auschwitz. actually, the “allies” did NOTHING for the Jews. they started fighting ONLY when they started to fear for themselves, and then they only helped themwelves, and did nothing to stop the nazi genocide in auschwitz and other places. today it is the same. angela merkel likes to present herself as a friend of Israel, and stupid Israeli PM’s fall into the trap. but actually, her country remains iran’s closed economic partner. oh yeah, germany is for tough sanctions against iran. but there are no german sanctions. parole parole parole. yesterday like today. nothing changed - except one thing: we have a state, we have an army. and the weakness of the ruling oligarchy will eventually come to an end. and then we shall do what the RAMBAM puts down at the end of the Laws of the Kings and Their Wars.
Comment by Tar Yag — March 22, 2010 @ 5:22 pm
Israel in transition:
As the Israeli left fatally weakens, the Israeli right is evolving and growing in strength.
Netanyahu is a transition figure for the right. He stays in the center, and plays good-cop, bad-cop, using Barak as his “good” leftist cop, and Lieberman as his “bad” rightist cop.
Lieberman is a great man. He is not religious, but he lives in a settlement, hates the goyim, and speaks Jewish truth to goyish power. He is not ashamed to be Jewish, and sees nothing to apologize for. (Does Netanyahu?)
The future of Israel, though, is the Moshe Feiglins of Israel. And they live in Khevron, Beit El and the settlements (including K’far Tapuakh?), not in Tel Aviv.
Comment by Samuel Fistel — March 22, 2010 @ 6:12 pm
Tar Yag
i agree with you in broad terms.
I think in your comment 4 you are voicing the Trotskyist (marxist) analysis of the Second World War, which was not a war fought for “democracy” at all, but for Imperial interests.
So Churchill was always a consistent Imperialist of the worst british mould. That is why Churchill inthose early years did 2 things, he gave the Arabs their 78 per cent of the Jewish Homeland which became later the independent Arab stater in palestine of Jordan.
he also led in the fight to destroy the newly formed workers state in Russia, the product of the Russian revolution of 1917, which sent a tremor through the whole of the capitalist world, WHICH THEY STILL REMEMBER but which they have become adept at lying about.
People onthis site like Ayn Reagan, possibly yourself but you canenlighten, are also part of this.
Reagan never loses an opportunity on this site to JOIN WITH CHURCHILL and all of that rabid capitalist ideology when she attacks Marxism which is the theory of wlorking class revolution.
Then there are those like ShyGuy who is explicitely opposed to the workers revolution of 1917.
Reagan published a notorious piece here about the miurder of Leon Trotsky and gloated over the murder by Ramon Mercader, who was a Stalinist thug who came out of the Spanish Civil War repression by Stalin of revolutionaries.
Ted beñlman was silent on the issue of reagan´s attack on Trotsky, but Ted knows that he visited about 2 years ago a distant relative of his and this man was quite clear that to him Trotsky was a hero and this man and relative of ted clearly differentiated between Stalin and Trotsky
reagan on this site says some things we are in agreement with but her overall role is to keep Jews from understanding a vital section of all our history, because the Russian revolution and all that it contains, including the rise of Stalinism, and the resistance to Stalinism by Trotsky is also part of the history of the Jewish people.
Tar yag you do seem to hjavea superficial understanding of the actual history of the Second World war.
You do n ot mention that even though Stalin was a horror and a tyrant that he was at the head of the Red Army, and it was the Red Army which battled against the nazis, defeated the Nazis, and enabled the Death camps to b e finished with, the nazis sent to hell, where Hitler and his coterie including his reactionary and obviously doltish girl friend, his wife in last hours, finished with themselves.
You Tar Yag are too casual with these aspects.
Another aspect tar Yag you do not mention is that it was the Desert rats, the young English boys under Montgomery who defeated Rommel. Behind Rommel was waiting Walther rauff who intended ont heliquidation of all Jews in North Africa but principally in palestine.
In other word Tar Yag you seem to have a fleetingly superficial understanding of all history and your reference to the rambam leaves me somewhat puzzled.
What the Rambam wrote may be of interest but it does not repalce your atrrocious lack of understanding of vital areas of history.
And with that as a handicap Jews will not win.
The problem with you, with Yamit to an extent, certainly with Reagan is that you cannot raise your game from out of the Jewish ghetto where you seem to linger.
To you all much of history is a meaningless blur.
Therefore you cannot provide a theory as a guide to action and never will.
Just take this guy Lieberman.
At no time during this interview does he confront der Spiegel with the role of the Germans in the Holocaust. If I had been Lieberman I would have either refused to meet the bastards, but given that I would have replied to every question and to every barb by returning the discussion to gernmany and the Holocaust.
if it had been an Irish newspaper then I would have done the same but this time referred to the role of the Irish during the Holocaust
You see Tar yag 6 million of your people were killed, and iot takes a very special kind of leadership which can treat these bastards with the contempt that they really deserve.
What would feiglin have done? i confess I do not know. But what I have read of feiglin he appears to have the same narrow historical and political outlook that you, Yamit, and Reagan suffer from
Now Tar yag from what I know of you in the past I fully expect you will not reply to my points here but will exhibit in your reply, if you do reply, just this narrow and uneducated outlookthat will prove inadequate yet again to save the Jews from fascism
Comment by Felix Quigley — March 22, 2010 @ 6:33 pm
The Hitler-Stalin pact pales by comparison with the Yag-Quigley Alliance.
Insane Religious Bigotry Intersects With Totalitarian Lunacy.
It is reminiscent of Abbott And Costello Meet Dracula And The Wolfman.
The implications are terrifying.
Comment by ayn reagan — March 22, 2010 @ 6:56 pm
All of you except ayn are full of it. Lieberman is a lying populist who has ambitions to be PM If BB would go right Lieberman would move to the center and BB moving left he moves to the right, In order for him to have anyone take notice of him, since as FM he is in charge of dealing with Peru, Zimbabwe and Iceland. ( Peres and Barak are essentially performing duties of FM). Lieberman is even persona non grata in Russia, most of the EU and the USA.
He is willing to give up almost all of the WB including his own settlement and even Jerusalem and is on record. If he was once ideologically motivated he hasn’t been in many years by his actions and his rhetoric. Just look at his hand picked party list. Except for Uzi Landau name another ideological right winger in his party; Danny Ayalon?
The only thing that most of the so-called International community is their animus Towards Jews and Israel. There are constants in history and natural law it seems.
The international community has always been indecisive and always will be.
The problem is and always has been Israels indecisiveness
Felix it is you who is the ignoramus of history especially that of the Jews. History for you began in the late 19th century and especially from 1905. It is you who lack the historical prism to understand western history and civilization in general and Jewish history in particular. Without such knowledge I submit it is impossible to understand and contextualize the world of today.
ROTF
Comment by yamit82 — March 22, 2010 @ 7:53 pm
I thought it was the Quigley-Yag Alliance. No?
Comment by RandyTexas — March 22, 2010 @ 9:08 pm
felix,
the english did not defeat rommel, actually historians do not know how to explain rommel’s defeat since there are things between heaven and earth wich they do not know. some days before rommel was expected to enter Erets Yisrael, a number of great cabbalistic Rabbis gathered together on Rachel’s tomb to pray, and then the wonder happened.
Comment by Tar Yag — March 22, 2010 @ 9:18 pm
Excellent likenesses.
And I finally found peskin.
Comment by ayn reagan — March 22, 2010 @ 9:18 pm
Why does a German guy have the first name of Guido?
Comment by Laura — March 22, 2010 @ 11:09 pm
the germans envy the italians for what the germans do not have
Comment by Tar Yag — March 23, 2010 @ 12:21 am
ron,
I had never seen Obama from this angle.
Suddenly, it all makes sense.
Comment by ayn reagan — March 23, 2010 @ 12:54 am