Recent remarks by FM Liberman
reflect the political Right’s tacit deference to views of the political Left
and implied acknowledgment of its moral superiority.
Several short excerpts:
When there is a dispute between the unity of the nation or the unity of
the land, the nation’s unity is more important… I’m willing to give up
territory in the name of national unity.
– Foreign Minister Avigdor
Liberman, Tel Aviv, February 7
Several days after last Friday’s address by Foreign Minister Avigdor
Liberman marking the 75th anniversary of the Industrial and Commercial
Association, the political system is still abuzz, analyzing the significance
of, and the motivations, for the sentiments and positions expressed in it….
Wrong focus for unity
Liberman’s pronouncement that “when there is a dispute between the unity
of the nation or the unity of the land, the nation’s unity is more important”
is no less problematic. Implicit in this statement is the defeatist assumption
that the unity of the nation and unity of the land are mutually exclusive. It
implies that it is impossible to rally the nation around the unity of the land,
but it is possible to do so over its division….It implies the unity of the
nation can only be achieved if opponents of territorial withdrawal defer to the
dictates of the proponents of withdrawal.
This position flies in the face of rational analysis and practical
experience. Over the past quarter-century the proponents of the land-for-peace
paradigm have been proven consistently and catastrophically wrong, while all
the warnings of the opponents of this failed formula have been proved
continuously and consistently right (no pun intended).
So here’s the question. What possible merit is there in calling for the
nation to rally around a position that has been proven consistently incorrect,
rather than calling on it to rally around a position that has been proven
consistently correct?
A question of courage
This leads directly to the question of courage and leadership, topics Liberman
invoked in his address when he proclaimed: “What is needed is leadership with
courage to make changes.” Given the context of his address the implication is
clear. Courageous leadership is needed to unify the nation around the division
of the land.
This of course is a curious interpretation of the concept of “courage” and
looks suspiciously close to the countervailing concept of “cowardice.”
Surely courage involves defending positions, not abandoning them; holding
firm despite pressures, not yielding to them; surely it entails defiance, not
compliance; rebuffing adversarial demands, not submitting to them.
Surely leadership with courage would opt for unity based on Zionist
creation, rather than Zionist capitulation.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Liberman’s remarks reflect
the tacit deference by the political Right to the views of the political Left
and implied acknowledgment of its moral superiority .This is totally
unfounded and unjustified – and dispelling this outrageously absurd illusion is
the true challenge of “courageous leadership.”
As usual your
talkbacks/comments/critiques welcome
(b) DEBATE ON i24:
Avigdor Lieberman - a new
player in the Israeli political game?
Dr. Martin Sherman and Benjamin Rutland
http://www.i24news.tv/en/tv/replay/debate#/debate/3179728371001
Dr. Martin Sherman and Benjamin Rutland
http://www.i24news.tv/en/tv/replay/debate#/debate/3179728371001
No comments:
Post a Comment