A surprising observation from left wing commentator, Glenn Greenwald:
Needless to say, isolating an Israeli government that includes the democratically elected Yisrael Beiteinu party and childishly pretending that they don’t exist is a central prong of the peace camp’s approach …
Well, no, of course that’s not what Greenwald wrote. He wrote that (with some strategic changes) about Israel’s refusal to negotiate with Hamas, a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction. He was making the point that the United States ought to treat Hamas as a legitimate player in the Middle East because a poll in Israel showed that most Israelis thought that their government should negotiate with Hamas.
Here’s what Greenwald actually wrote about Yisrael Beiteinu (prior to the election):
The Haider/Lieberman comparison isn’t perfect. Haider had made a handful of stray reprehensible comments which were anti-Semitic or even sympathetic to former Nazi Party members, but the platform on which he actually ran had nothing to do with that. It was the standard nativist, anti-immigrant cant sweeping much of the European Right at the time. Arguably, though, Lieberman’s Arab-hating bile is even worse. Whereas Haider, an Austrian citizen, was demonizing foreign immigrants seeking to enter the country, Lieberman himself is an immigrant to Israel and is demonizing citizens who have been Israelis far longer than he has.
So the fact that Lieberman actually advocates territorial compromise doesn’t free him from the charge of racism. But Greenwald’s clear implication: If Lieberman is included in a ruling coalition, the United States (and the world) should ostracize Israel.
His hypocrisy is monumental. First of all, why doesn’t he apply the Haider comparison to Mahmoud Abbas, the “moderate” in the PA? But for Greenwald, a terrorist group whose ideology is the killing of Jews and who acts on that ideology is not too evil to respect, but a politician who promotes compromise is beyond the pale. Funny but getting elected, according to Greenwald legitimizes Hamas but not Lieberman. Ain’t democracy great?
In the earlier article I linked, Greenwald complained:
…few American politicians could ever get away with advocating that Israel attempt diplomatically to negotiate its conflicts with Hamas. Cascades of “anti-Israel,” “soft-on-Terrorists” and other related accusations would pour down on any person suggesting such a thing.
Let’s be very clear: Greenwald considers Hamas legitimate. He is both “anti-Israel” and “soft on terrorists.” Since he considers the killing of Jews not to be illegitimate, I would argue that he is also antisemitic.
Unsurprsingly Steven Walt praises Greenwald’s commentary. (via memeorandum)
While not defending Lieberman, it’s worth pointing out that he did not emerge in a vacuum. An Israeli Arab, Ali Zahalka, wrote in Ynet the other day (via the Lede):
Our leadership, which for years had been leading us in a way that portrays us as the enemies of the State of Israel, while failing to take care of any of the real needs of Israel’s Arab residents, is now asking for our votes again. Yet we interest our leadership just about as much as the Gaza population interests Hamas. For this leadership, we are merely a political means that allows it to make its damaging voice heard again and again.
I don’t believe that Lieberman is the threat that Zahalka thinks he is, but Zahalka at least acknowledges that the radical and often anti-Israel pronouncements of Israeli Arab politicians over the years, is what has given Lieberman’s views traction.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
