Rick Richman has interpreted Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s first official address as promoting a policy of peace through strength. Frankly, insofar as Lieberman’s domestic supporters and detractors alike don’t typically see the Yisrael Beitenu leader as a man of peace, this seems a bit too generous.
But even if Rick’s analysis is accurate, the more important point is that Lieberman’s deeply controversial reputation precedes him, thereby coloring virtually everyone else’s interpretation of whatever he happens to say. Indeed, it is hardly surprising that the reactions to Lieberman’s speech — which merely put another nail in the coffin of the long-dead Annapolis “process” — have been almost unanimously negative. For this reason, Jerusalem faces a serious challenge in its conduct of foreign policy: how can it put a reputedly undiplomatic top diplomat to good use?
Here’s one possibility: perhaps Lieberman’s contrast with Benjamin Netanyahu lends itself to a good-cop/bad-cop dynamic. After all, Netanyahu — whose first address as prime minister was well received and considered “conciliatory” — is hard at work trying to convince foreign leaders of his own moderation, hoping to reinforce support against Iranian nuclear ambitions. Insofar as international perceptions of Lieberman will make anything he says — fairly or unfairly — seem “hawkish,” Netanyahu can emerge looking less trigger-happy by comparison.
Of course, making Netanyahu look good is hardly what Lieberman had in mind when he joined the Likud-led government. But at least the good-cop/bad-cop dynamic gives Lieberman a clear function, as well as a reason to continue espousing his views freely for the benefit of his political base.
Otherwise, history suggests that Lieberman would be cast to the side. After all, during his previous premiership, Netanyahu similarly appointed two foreign ministers with minimal diplomatic skills and international esteem, thereby ensuring his total domination of Israeli diplomacy. Indeed, like the non-English speaking David Levy before him, Lieberman is destined to be diplomatically overshadowed despite controlling the Foreign Ministry. But unlike Levy, at least Lieberman won’t have to be quiet.
I’m curious, what does a domestic political lobby in Washington D.C. have to do with the UN?
It’s interesting that as the UN works to protect Sharia, a new organization called Muslims against Sharia law has appeared. I just learned about this from Phyllis Chesler’s blog,
http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/
They simply want any people who disagree with them to cease to exist. What human rights watchdog could find fault with that?
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the Islamic states would introduce a measure like this. They’ll just keep plugging along, trying to legislate Islam into a dominant position if it takes a millenium or the return of the Mahdi, whichever comes first. Others will use more dynamic tactics.
I wonder if reprinting Dante would be prohibited under this proposal.
This is the description of Mohammed in hell. among Sowers of Scandal and
Schism (Canto XXVIII; Mandelbaum’s unrhymed translation):
No barrel, even though it’s lost a hoop
or end-piece, ever gapes as one whom I
saw ripped right from his chin to where we fart:
his bowels hung between his legs, one saw
his vitals and the miserable sack
that makes of what we swallow excrement.
While I was all intent on watching him,
he looked at me, and with his hands he spread
his chest and said: “See how I split myself!
See now how maimed Mohammed is! And he
who walks and weeps before me is Ali,
whose face is opened wide from chin to forelock.
Well, yeah. This has THE JOOZ written all over it. Notice the diabolical cleverness of getting Muslim Pakistan to propose honoring Allah’s will in the UN, in order to set up a pretext for fomenting opposition from others, and thereby divide the nations and the peoples.
Using Allah in that vicious, conniving, underhanded way like that. Bloody-fanged baby-chomping Zionist pigs. Must have had a secret CONFERENCE we didn’t know about.
In other news, a major terror bombing was apparently averted in Amsterdam. No word yet if this was plot was due to the evil acts of Israel and its Lobby.
In addition, John Demjanjuk (remember him) was charged in Germany with 29,000 counts of accessory to murder and will be deported to Germany for trial. The Lobby apparently holds a wicked grudge.
Yes, the resolution emphasizes its special concern with Islamophobia.
But most of the clauses deal with outlawing expressions of religious hatred, xenophobia, and restrictions on the freedom of all religion.
It seems to me, if that crimps anyone’s style it is that of Muslim countries.
There are already plenty of similar proscriptions in force in Western countries. It is behavior in Islamic states which such a resolution, if seriously enforced, would constrain. It would delegitimize much of the Koran’s teachings.
I’d be inclined to give a bit of sympathy, however slight, to this sort of thing if the Muslim countries meant “religions” when they say “religions.” If they took any steps towards suppressing the torrent of rhetoric and action against Judaism (and Jews) they could at least be respected for meaning what they say.