The media have portrayed Avigdor Lieberman as a rabid anti-Arab bigot who refuses to adhere to the Two-state Solution School of Middle East Politics. So I read with interest this article in Ynet the other day, and waited for the MSM to pick up on this very important change in Lieberman’s—and by extension, Netanyahu’s—public statements.
Israel’s controversial foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, openly promoted the concept of two states for two people, London-based Egyptian newspaper al-Hayat reported on Saturday.
According to the paper, Lieberman was “incredibly moderate” during a meeting with Omar Suleiman, Egypt’s Intelligence Chief. Suleiman visited Israel last week, meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres.
[…] The paper quoted the source as saying that “Lieberman was incredibly moderate and spoke with Suleiman about the peace process and negotiations. He presented the two-state solution as a means to promote security, stability and peace in the region.
Here’s what AP’s latest Israel story reports in its explanation of the two-state solution, near the end of a story about the IDF catching the terrorist who murdered a child with an axe:
Lieberman has rejected the Annapolis process.
“I don’t think it’s right to immediately agree to negotiations on a final accord,” Lieberman told Army Radio. “The political process must begin at the beginning, not the end.”
Netanyahu has resisted pressure to declare support for the creation of a Palestinian state, and Lieberman has said Israeli concessions have only brought more violence.
Meantime, Reuters manages to spin Syria as the moderate in the Israel/Syria conflict.
Lieberman, an ultranationalist coalition partner to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said the less than month-old government was still formulating foreign policy but made clear he saw Syria’s bedrock demand for the Golan as up for debate.
This is not the view from Damascus, which says Israel, which annexed the Golan in a move not recognized abroad, is legally required to return it along with other occupied Arab territory.
And yet, I am not surprised that the wire services don’t report on what is seemingly a sharp change in Lieberman’s policy. Because we do not get objective reporting from the mainstream media on Israel. We get narrative. And it doesn’t fit the narrative that Lieberman is open to the two-state solution. Therefore, it is ignored.
Really, though—painting Syrias as the moderate partner in the Golan issue is beyond the pale. Syria bombarded Israeli farmers for decades from the Golan Heights. Funny how when the media report on the Golan, their history stops at June 4, 1967. Because if they were to mention its prehistory, they’d have to make people understand why Israel doesn’t want to give back the Golan.