Yisrael Beitenu leader Avigdor Lieberman said the land-for-peace talks would lead to Israel's destruction.
Israeli Arab politicians condemn the party as racist for advocating the expulsion of Arab citizens from Israel to a future Palestinian state.
Despite its departure, the coalition still retains a parliamentary majority.
However, it is only by seven seats, meaning Ehud Olmert's government is now vulnerable to any similar withdrawal by the religious party Shas.
| | Negotiations on the basis of land for peace are a critical mistake... and will destroy us Avigdor Lieberman |
"A few minutes ago, I spoke to the prime minister and I also gave him a written announcement of our departure from the coalition and my resignation from the government," Mr Lieberman said.
"Negotiations on the basis of land for peace are a critical mistake... and will destroy us," the outgoing strategic affairs minister and deputy prime minister told a news conference.
"It is clear to everyone that these talks will lead to nothing."
Contradictions
Correspondents have often highlighted the contradictions of Mr Lieberman's participation in a coalition pledging to make peace with the Palestinians.
He is one of Israel's most outspoken hardliners, who has in the past suggested bombing Egypt's Aswan Dam and executing Israeli Arab MPs, as well as reportedly calling for Palestinian prisoners to be drowned.
Mr Olmert's political vulnerability could increase later this month, with the publication of an inquiry into the 2006 Lebanon war, which is expected to criticise his government.
But a statement by Mr Olmert's office said final status talks - on Jerusalem, borders, Jewish settlements and Palestinian refugees - were "the only real chance of ensuring the peace and security of Israeli citizens".
The departure of Yisrael Beitenu, which appeals to Israel's large immigrant community from the former Soviet Union, leaves the coalition led by Mr Olmert's Kadima party with 67 seats in the 120-seat chamber.
Outposts closed
Israeli forces evacuated two small settlement outposts in the West Bank, in line with commitments it has made in the faltering US-sponsored peace process.
At one outpost, near the Palestinian town of Nablus, the five settlers living there fled when the soldiers arrived and no arrests were made.
At a second outpost nearby, Shvut Ami, bulldozers demolished one of two partly built houses.
A small protest was held by about 20 teenagers who were eventually removed by the security forces.
Israeli campaign group Peace Now estimates that about 3,000 Jewish settlers live in outposts - embryonic settlements not authorised by the Israeli government.
About 430,000 settlers live in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, on settlements authorised by the Israeli government.
All settlements are considered illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7191350.stm
I posted this to provide a little insight into the workings of Israeli democracy. Since it is a parliamentary system, and therefore often governed by coalition governments, minority parties often yield power well beyond their popularity with the general public. This is a case in point. While most Israelis (just as most Palestinians) are in favor of the land for peace proposal, efforts are derailed by hardliners and radicals. Honestly, most people on both sides seem willing to give a lot over in exchange for peace. So if most people want it, why is it so hard? Radicals like Hamas shoulder part of the blame, but one answer also lies in the Israeli electoral design. Because of the system, minority groups like Shas and Yisrael Beitenu are potentially able to bring down the government coalition if they withdraw. So in order to stay in power, moderate (larger) parties often cow to the radicals. Sad, and self-serving on the part of moderate parties too, but it's the way it works. The point here is simply just to explain how radicals can exert disproportionate authority and disrupt peace deals that most everyone favors. Sad.
One last thing: Liberman, the leader of Yisrael Beitenu, is scary. He wants to assassinate Arab members of parliament, bomb Egypt, and kill Palestinian prisoners? And he was both Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Strategic Affairs? I would say WTF?, but I just explained how this happens. Uggh...
4 comments:
Thanks for the insight Reed, interesting stuff. Personally, if I were members of the coalition government, I'd say "don't let the door hit you on the way out", and get back to the business of real, substantive progress.
And holy freakin' shit... Lieberman isn't so much a hardliner as he a fuckin' sociopath! Someone needs to drown THAT asshole. :|
Saying don't let the door hit you would be awesome. The problem is that now if Shas, the religious party, leaves then the government falls through a vote of no confidence and it forces new elections (well, generally this is what happens in these situations). So saying "smell you later" is easier said than done. Unfortunately. So the struggle goes on.
And this is a key problem in the conflict. Fringe parties and politicians like these wield substantial power, and I would argue they are no less violently ideological than groups like Hamas. The only difference between the two are that most of the world views Israeli hardliners as legitimate politicians and policy makers while at the same time labeling Hamas, which was also legitimately elected, as a terrorist group. I am not claiming that Hamas isn't a terrorist group mind you. I am just critically questioning how labels are constructed and how language is applied (I think we hit on this before). Given that Liberman held a position that gave him sway in military and defense affairs, what differentiates him (and others in the Israeli government and military) from terrorists if their actions result in scores of civilian casualties?
Just thinking we might want to think critically about how we use labels and frame arguments. I agree with John, though, Liberman does sound like a sociopath. He can suck it (until he drowns)!
Right, and I agree... but it's no more correct to say that Israel is a terrorist state than it to say that the Palestinians are terrorists handing out bomb belts to kids. The vast majority of Israelis want peace... even to the point of genuinely sympathizing with the Palestinians and their plight.
And I might add: what a suck-ass way to conduct one's government. "Tyranny of the minority"...
I know I often criticize our 2 party system, but sometimes, I do actually see a glint of wisdom in it.
I agree. I am not trying to argue who is right or wrong, worse or better. I just think that personal bias and politics frame the situation in most cases and remove any kind of objective criticism. US policy makers tout Israel as the only democracy in the Middle East and back it to an absurd degree despite its language of commitment to human rights. Israeli leaders s argue that their strategies are the only option available in the face of a radical, terrorist threat. Palestinian militants and their supporters cast Hamas and Fateh and Islamic Jihad as freedom fighters seeking to liberate Palestine from a Zionist-Western occupation. The point is that where you sit often frames your perspective, and how you label the "other" also justifies your actions. Stepping back and examining the situation and perspectives critically creates new insights. So I am not making a blanket statement that Israeli is a terrorist state; I am only saying that condemning Hamas and labeling it as a terrorist while touting Israeli democracy and restraint is misleading and ill-informed. The question is why is one group labeled a terrorist organization while the other is not? If both use tactics that create similar outcomes what is the difference?
As a last note, I should say that not all parliamentary systems work this way and it is not a sure thing that the Israeli's govt will collapse. Plus, how much power minority groups hold caries by the wording of the constitution as well as the general support that the moderates can claim. In general I like the idea that minorities get a voice (since they often don't in presidential, winner-take all systems like the US), but the problem is that sometimes those groups have a disproportional influence. So...sadly no system is perfect. This is just a bad case of tyranny of the minority as Beck said...though that is only one aspect of the greater problem.
Post a Comment