From Israel - The Handle on Sinai

Arlene Kushner..
27 August '12..





I had hoped -- deeply hoped -- to be able to turn my attention to matters other than the situation in the Sinai. But the news there has loomed so large and seemed so ominous, that it merits on-going attention. And so, once again, I begin with this subject.

This time, however, I believe I will be able to provide a bit more clarity about what's happening.

The news has been utterly confounding and filled with contradictions: Tanks have been brought in by the Egyptians to combat the jihadists with the permission of Israel; Israel did not give permission. The Egyptian Defense Minister al-Sisi called Israeli Defense Minister Barak and the two came to an understanding; there was no such phone call.

And, most recently: An Egyptian general came into the Sinai to negotiate with the jihadists and the efforts to take out the terrorists is over; Egyptians say they are continuing their efforts against the terrorists.

~~~~~~~~~~

The information I have now secured is from a most reliable source -- an Arabic-speaking and very savvy Israeli academic with multiple connections. He is in no way an apologist for the Egyptians. This is what he explained:

The jihadist terrorists are hiding in caves in the mountains (I have written about this) and thus tanks are worthless against them. What is needed are infantry combat units and helicopters to bring them up to the mountain tops.

~~~~~~~~~~

The tanks were brought in as a PR ploy, to show the Egyptian people the army is tough and doesn't need to abide by Israeli demands. The intent here, however, is not to set up a situation that leads to war with Israel -- my source does not anticipate that Egypt will go to war with Israel, either in the short range, or even the "medium range" future. Rather, says my source, the Egyptian government is attempting to counter or deflate the demands of those who call for breaking the peace treaty with Israel.

One might argue that bringing in the tanks has broken the treaty. And technically, this would be the case if Israel had not approved the move. But the intent here apparently was not to break it in all its parameters but, quite the contrary, to enable it to be saved. The bravado was for internal consumption.

At the end of the day, will the tanks remain? This I cannot say. Might the situation shift so that the tanks would be drawn upon in a limited military action? I have no crystal ball and so can not definitively rule this out. But what I can report is that a source I consider highly reliable has told me that it is not the intention of the Egyptian government to break the peace treaty and move towards war with Israel.

With Abbas in charge there will be no peace

Lieberman was right..

Aaron Marcus..
The Commentator..
24 August '12..

Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's foreign minister, came under international fire this week for suggesting in a letter to world leaders that the Palestinian Authority should hold new elections to oust current Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. Lieberman called Abbas an “obstacle to peace,” stating that, while he was not taking part in terrorism, he was engaged in legal and diplomatic warfare.

As a result of his letter, the Palestinian Authority called for the “criminal” Lieberman to be “fired” and Prime Minister Netanyahu distanced himself from the letter saying Lieberman’s position does not reflect the Israeli government’s.

First things first: memo to the Palestinian Authority – when someone says something you disagree with, it doesn’t make them a “criminal.”

Second, in a democracy, a head of government, particularly the head of a coalition government, can't easily just fire someone. Sure, Netanyahu could try to demote Lieberman from his position as Foreign Minister, but why should he? Lieberman was honest with his characterization of Abbas: the PA Leader is currently in the midst of an epic "hostage" situation, with Israel and the Palestinian people as his hostage.

Despite Israeli concessions like land withdrawals, tax remittance programs, building freezes in Judea and Samaria and direct Israeli aid to the Palestinian Authority, there has been no progress in finding a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israel has exhausted all measures of goodwill to get the Palestinians to the negotiating table, but the PA leadership refuses.

Abbas has sidestepped Israel in negotiating any final status agreement, instead persisting with anti-Israel activity by continuing to praise murderous terrorists, encouraging international boycotts of Israel and denying Jewish historical significance to the land of Israel.

These dogmatic assertions have perpetuated hatred against Israel in the Palestinian Territories and around the world under the pretense that if you delegitimize at all costs eventually you will get your way. Keep in mind that Lieberman didn’t call for Abbas to be assassinated or thrown in prison, but merely for the Palestinian electorate to have an opportunity to democratically choose a new leader. After all, Abbas was elected in 2004 to serve a four year term of which he is now in his eighth year without re-election.

Perhaps the PA reacted so harshly to Lieberman’s reasonable suggestion because with sky-high poverty, unemployment, and no urgency in negotiating with Israel, Fatah has a slim chance of once again retaining Palestinian support.

Weekly Commentary: Once again the timing could have been much worse for us

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
Weekly Commentary
10 February '11

Once again the timing could have been much worse for us.

Just imagine how much more complicated and dangerous the situation would have been if Egyptian security forces were deployed today in the Gaza Strip while Jordanian troops bivouacked next door to Kfar Sava. Sure it sounds ridiculous today, but that’s what Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman advocated for years and he was hardly alone. All kinds of experts and politicians were pushing such a move.

Why “once again”?

If not for the Second Lebanon War, the IDF today would be a skeleton force stripped of vital forces and left with many units that hadn’t held a serious exercise in years (so much so that the soldiers no longer even remembered how to operate their equipment).

If not for Yasser Arafat’s refusal to behave himself from the very start of Oslo we could just as easily be facing a crisis today with a sovereign Palestinian terror state poised to exploit the opportunity to complete the destruction of the Jewish State.

The same could be said for Syria, where two generations of Assads fortunately refused to do a “Sadat” and get the Golan Heights in return for a visit to Jerusalem and speech at the Knesset.

And the list goes on.

And so, for all the loss of sleep developments in Egypt are causing us today, it can still definitely be said that the timing could have been much worse for us.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The Israel Obsession Claims Another Victim: Europe’s Global Status

Evelyn Gordon
Contentions/Commentary
11 October '10

In his usual undiplomatic fashion, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told his French and Spanish counterparts yesterday that they should solve Europe’s own problems — like Kosovo and Cyprus — before trying to tell Israel how to solve its problems. That predictably infuriated his guests. Yet in this instance, Lieberman was largely echoing the advice of one of the European Union’s own members — and not one known for pro-Israel sentiment.

Last month, Finnish Foreign Minister Alex Stubb presented the results of research he conducted into what EU foreign ministers do and don’t discuss during their monthly meetings. The results were astounding.

For instance, he found that over the past four years, the ministers had held exactly one discussion on the role of China as a foreign policy power. Yet given China’s growing assertiveness on the world stage, that would surely rank at the top of just about anyone’s list of major foreign policy issues.

So what were EU foreign ministers devoting their time to instead? To quote the New York Times’ summary,

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

European Involvement in Gaza Spells Trouble for Israel

Soeren Kern
Hudson New York
29 July '10

Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero will lead a European Union delegation that is scheduled to visit the Gaza Strip in early September. The EU delegation, which will also include representatives from Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Norway, was invited by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman during a June 24 meeting with his Italian counterpart, Franco Frattini. Lieberman said the idea is for the EU representatives to be able to see Gaza "with their own eyes."

The invitation is part of Lieberman's recent proposal for a complete Israeli disengagement from Gaza. But promoting greater EU involvement in Gaza could backfire on Israel. Zapatero, who leads one of the most anti-Israel governments in Europe, will almost certainly use the visit to call for exerting more international pressure on Israel to completely lift the four-year blockade on Gaza. A high-profile EU visit is also likely to grant international legitimacy to the Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas that controls the Gaza Strip. Moreover, European officials will use the trip to call on Israel to make more concessions to the Palestinians in other areas as well.

Israel recently said it was easing the Gaza blockade somewhat by allowing a wider range of goods into the territory, with the exception of weapons and dual-use items. Israel has also agreed to let construction materials into Gaza, provided they are destined for projects under international supervision. But exports are still banned and people cannot move freely over the border. Israel says the blockade on Gaza's ports will stay in place to prevent Hamas from shipping in military-grade weapons and long-range rockets.

The September trip will follow recent visits to Gaza by the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Catherine Ashton ( the EU's top foreign policy official and the most senior foreign emissary to visit Gaza since Israel's decision to ease its blockade) and former EU Commissioner Chris Patten.

Ashton's trip to Gaza, only four months after her first visit there, was aimed to "show EU support" for the Palestinians. She called on the international community to pressure Israel to go beyond easing the embargo to fully lift the "unacceptable, unsustainable and counterproductive" blockade.

"There are small signs of change in policy to allow goods into Gaza, but we continue to call for the opening of the crossings to enable people and goods to move around," Ashton said. "What needs to happen now," Ashton said, "is continued international pressure to move forward." She also proposed that an EU naval mission help with the transfer of goods. Ashton did not, however, meet Hamas officials during her time in Gaza (the European Union, like Israel and the United States, views the anti-Israel militant group as a terrorist group).

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Why Are the Palestinians Opposed to Ending the Occupation?

Jonathan Dahoah Halevi
Global Law Forum
JCPA
22 July '10

Foreign Minister Lieberman's plan to assist the Gaza Strip in becoming an independent entity has encountered wall-to-wall Palestinian opposition. The dual-headed Palestinian regime in Ramallah (Fatah) and in the Gaza Strip (Hamas) totally rejects Lieberman's proposal to recruit the European Union to build power stations to supply electricity, desalination stations and a sewage treatment plant. This was to be part of a plan that would totally sever all connections with Israel, which would forego its naval supervision over merchandise entering the port of Gaza and would totally seal the border with the Gaza Strip.

The arguments against exercising Palestinian independence resemble each other. Nabil Abu Rudeineh, spokesperson for the Palestinian presidency at Ramallah, views Lieberman's plan as a plot "against the Palestinian people's aspirations for unity, liberty and independence" and as one that "expresses the aspirations of the Israeli extreme right." Ahmad Assaf, spokesperson for the Fatah organization that props up the Palestinian Authority, argued that the Gaza Strip is still under "Israeli occupation" and so it will remain, because the Strip constitutes a single geographic unit with the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Sami Abu Zuheiri , a Hamas spokesperson, explained that "although Gaza was liberated in practice from the military and settlement presence, it is still from a legal and practical standpoint under occupation" and the Lieberman initiative is "an attempt to elude the responsibility imposed on the occupation." Abu Zuheiri argued that Israel, "the occupying country," must continue to provide for the Gaza Strip's needs including food, electricity, and fuel.

The Hamas position exemplifies one of the major absurdities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Hamas, which took pride in liberating the Gaza Strip from the Israeli occupation via Jihad, is struggling with all its might to preserve the "Israeli occupation" of the Gaza Strip and obligate Israel to continue transferring supplies to an entity that avowedly declares that it will liberate all of Palestine, liquidate the State of Israel, and kill and expel its Jewish inhabitants. Hamas receives support for its position from international human rights organizations (Amnesty, Human Rights Watch), Palestinians and Israelis. These, similar to Hamas, vigorously argue that Israel is still "an occupying force" and therefore it must concern itself with "the security and welfare of the Gaza residents." Unfortunately, the position of the human rights organizations on which Hamas relies raises substantial questions. If Israel is still an "occupying force” in the Gaza Strip, as they contend, why do these organizations not demand that Israel exercise its obligation to assure the security of the Gaza residents and operate against the Hamas regime, that is gradually applying Islamic law in the Gaza Strip while flagrantly trampling human rights, suppressing the opposition with an iron hand and by executions?

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Avigdor Lieberman and the right wing mislabel

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
Weekly Commentary
22 July '10

FM Avigdor Lieberman's latest proposal to rely on the efficacy of inspections and other security activities by third parties in the Gaza Strip only reflects the ongoing disconnect between reality and the "solutions" he has advocated for years.

Consider the following policy recommendations from Avigdor Lieberman's 2004 book, My Truth, pages 202-203:

"Also overall security responsibility should be placed in the end on Egypt(AL: in the Gaza Strip)

"Jordan ...in such an arrangement should give support...including the issuing of passports and taking of overall and comprehensive security responsibility for what transpires in Judea and Samaria"

"Thus for practical purposes this arrangement will be, almost certainly, a kind of two confederations - in one case with the Jordanians, and in the other case with Egypt."

Time and again Yisrael Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman is labeled by the media as "right wing".

But is he?

Is it "right wing" to advocate bringing Jordanian security forces to the back entrance of Kfar Sava and Egyptian forces a few kilometers from Ashkelon?

And what of his "transfer" proposal that some areas in Israel with heavy Arab populations be transferred to a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation?

Since when is proposing borders that are even worse than Israel's pre-'67 "Auschwitz borders" a right wing proposal?

No.

There are all kinds of labels one may give to Avigdor Lieberman and his ideas.

The labels "reckless", "shortsighted" and "simplistic" all come to mind.

But "right wing" surely isn't one of them.

Related article: The Trouble with International Forces

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

FM Lieberman proposes Israel withdraw to less than Auschwitz lines

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
25 June '10

[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA:

"Therefore, for a lasting and fair solution, there needs to be an exchange of populated territories to create two largely homogeneous states, one Jewish Israeli and the other Arab Palestinian."

Here is the puzzle: If you go to the trouble to actually think about what Avigdor Lieberman is proposing (that a Palestinian state plunge into Israel in various locations where there is now a large Arab Israeli population) you realize that he advocates the creation of a Palestinian state with borders actually more dangerous than the '67 lines.

Granted, he also writes that "Israel will need to retain a presence on its borders to ensure no smuggling of arms" but that is painfully vague. What is a "presence"?

So why is he termed a "right winger" when in many respects he is proposing something to the left of Meretz?]

My blueprint for a resolution
By Avigdor Lieberman The Jerusalem Post 06/23/2010 23:40
www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=179333

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results," Albert Einstein once said.

Since 1993, successive governments, supported by the international community, have tried to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict using the flawed paradigm of land for peace. Each time, the same formula was attempted, but failed every time because of Arab recalcitrance.

Increasingly, the international community has started to demand that Israel return to the pre-1967 armistice lines as the basis of any resolution to the conflict. This has largely happened because there is a misunderstanding that the dispute is territorial in nature and confusion on international law and precedent.

Most importantly, the Israeli leadership has historically provided no alternatives to this paradigm.

Those who claim that Israel must return to the socalled Green Line need to examine UN Security Council Resolution 242, the legal framework created following the 1967 war when the territories were conquered.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Behind the Axis: The North Korean Connection

Jonathan Spyer
GLORIA Center
29 May '10

North Korean spokesmen reacted furiously last week to claims by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman that Pyongyang is supplying weapons technology to Iran and Syria. Representatives of the regime of Kim Jong-Il described Lieberman as an "imbecile." The official Korean Central News Agency in a memorable phrase accused the foreign minister in an official statement of "faking up sheer lies."

The indignant denials notwithstanding, recent studies indicate that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, as North Korea is officially known, is indeed playing a crucial but little remarked upon role in facilitating the arming of the Iran-led regional axis, including in the area of weapons of mass destruction. The North Korean role is multifaceted, and evidence has emerged of direct links to terror organizations such as Hizbullah and extensive strategic relations with both Iran and Syria.

A recent study by Christina Lin, a former US Department Defense official and specialist on China, looked into North Korea's strategic partnership with Iran. Lin noted that North Korea has been described as the "the most important single leak" in the international anti-proliferation effort in the Middle East.

Iranian-North Korean strategic cooperation dates back to the first days of the Islamic Republic. Its basis is clear. Iran needs access to advanced military technology to underwrite its regional ambitions. Its main suppliers are Russia and China. But both these countries are active members of the international system, and hence are to some degree constrained by international pressures. North Korea, on the other hand, is an isolated country, indifferent to Western attempts to control the access of Middle East radicals to advanced armaments.

North Korean assistance plays a vital role in the Iranian missile program. Its flagship Shihab missile project is a product of the relationship. The Shihab is based on North Korea's Nodong missile series. Iran is reported to have purchased 12 Nodong missile engines from North Korea in 1999, beginning the development of the Shihab-3. The Shihab-3, which has a range of 1,300-1,500 kilometers, places Israel within range.

More recently, Iranian officials were present at the testing of the advanced Taepodong-2 missile in North Korea in July 2006. This missile is the basis for the Iranian development of the Shihab-6, which has not yet been tested. These are intercontinental, nuclear capable ballistic missile systems, thought to have a range of 5,000-6,000 kilometers.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Redeeming the Jewish Wimp

Emmanuel Navon
For the Sake of Zion
16 April '10

In his press conference last week, Prime Minister Netanyahu lamented that his Turkish counterpart has been attacking Israel since Operation Cast Lead. Actually, Erdogan’s anti-Israel salvos have a longer history.

In 2004, Erdogan called Israel a “terrorist state” after we eliminated Sheikh Yassin. In February 2006, he hosted Hamas leader Haled Mashal in Ankara. In January 2009 he staged a temper tantrum at the Davos Conference calling Shimon Peres an expert killer. In October 2009, the Turkish state television started airing fiction series showing Israeli soldiers intentionally murdering Palestinian children. In November 2009, Erdogan declared that he’d rather meet with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir (accused of war crimes and genocide by the International Criminal Court) than with Benjamin Netanyahu. In March 2010, Erdogan claimed that the Temple Mount, Hebron and Rachel’s tomb were never Jewish sites. Last week, Erdogan used his official visit to Paris to call Israel the greatest danger to the world and to peace.

Israel has been quietly putting up with Erdogan’s antics for no justifiable reason. True, Avigdor Lieberman decided to finally say something by comparing Erdogan to Chavez and Gaddafi. That was ineffective and silly: nothing could make Erdogan happier than being categorized as anti-American Don Quixote. All Lieberman had to do to embarrass Erdogan and expose his hypocrisy was to mention the Armenian genocide, Turkey’s refusal to grant a “right of return” to the post WWI Greek refugees, Turkey’s occupation of Cyprus, Turkey’s “apartheid wall” and “settlers” in Cyprus, Turkey’s adamant refusal to accept the establishment of a Kurdish state, and Turkey’s stubborn insistence on holding to a territory it grabbed from Syria (the Alexandretta Province).

Alas, Israel is a wimp –and not only with Turkey. Israel would never dare to “upset” Egypt by complaining about the fact that Mubarak’s state-controlled media are full of anti-Semitism, blood libels and Holocaust denial. When Egyptian Culture Minister Farouk Hosni said he would burn any Israeli book he found in his country, Israel didn’t have anything to say.

(Read full post)

Please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Wake Up and Smell the Paradigm Shift: Turkey's Regime Marches Toward Islamism

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
07 April '10

More evidence piles up every day that the Turkish government is moving toward radical Islamism yet Western policymakers pretend it merely combines a nice flavor of moderate Islam combined with democracy.

It is clear, for example, as Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan says, "It's Israel that is the principal threat to regional peace." Not Iran, Israel. Aside from everything else, the Turkish government is on the other side regarding Western efforts to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons since the prime minister has said that Iran isn't developing weapons, that he regards Iranian leader Ahmadinejad as a friend, and that even if Iran were building nuclear bombs it has a right to do so.

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman was right when he said that Erdogan is "slowly turning into [someone like Libyan dictator MuammarQadhafi] or [Venezuelan dictator] Hugo Chavez....It's his choice. The problem is not Turkey, the problem is Erdogan." Well, Erdogan and his colleagues.

Meanwhile, the regime also continues to arrest military officers on trumped up coup charges. Here's a good article on how the government is trying to intimidate the armed forces into intimidation, removing the last obstacle to its remaining in power for a very long time and doing as it pleases.

(Read full post)
.

Words, words, words

Moshe Arens
Haaretz
09 February '10

(It strikes me as a good summation of what's been said in recent weeks and conclusions to be drawn. Y.)

One might be inclined to brush off the recent verbal exchanges between Ehud Barak, Walid Moallem and Avigdor Lieberman as no more than Hamlet's "words, words, words" that have little meaningful content. Nevertheless, they are an indication of the thoughts running through the minds of Israel's defense and foreign minister and Syria's foreign minister. So just what are these thoughts?

Let's start with our defense minister. Barak is saying that if Israel does not negotiate a peace agreement with Syria - one that would lead to the return of the Golan Heights to Syrian control - Israel is risking a war with Syria; that after such a war, we would simply return to the present situation and the need to negotiate a peace agreement with Syria and give up the Golan.

Really? Does that mean that in his opinion Israel's deterrent capability against Syria that has existed since the Yom Kippur War and was reinforced during the first Lebanon war has worn thin over the years and, in effect, no longer exists? Does that mean that after a war initiated by Syria, Syria's situation would essentially be no different than before it attacked Israel, that it would continue to remain a threat so that Israel would be forced to concede the Golan Heights? Well, that would be good news for Syrian President Bashar Assad, and if taken seriously by him might even put adventurous thoughts in his mind.

Except that Assad knows better than that. He knows that a war with Israel would probably damage Syria severely and leave him with little chance to continue to make demands on Israel; that is, unless he places great reliance on the thousands of ballistic missiles he has accumulated over the years. Moallem hinted at their use. "Israel should know that a war will move to Israel's cities," he said. So maybe in fear of the destruction of its cities by Syrian missiles, Israel would prefer to concede the Golan Heights to Syria to prevent such a war. Is that really the balance of terror that now exists between Israel and Syria?

(Read full article)
.

Israel Threatens Assad with Regime Change

Michael J. Totten
Contentions/Commentary
05 February '10

The Israeli government may be moving beyond its fear and loathing of a Syria governed by somebody other than Bashar Assad. For years, Jerusalem has been careful to avoid doing anything or even saying anything that might destabilize Damascus. But after Syria’s foreign minister, Walid Moallem, threatened Israel this week with a war that would be fought “inside your cities,” Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman snapped. “Not only will you lose the war,” he said to Assad, “you and your family will no longer be in power.”

There are good reasons to feel squeamish about the aftermath of regime change, whether it comes at the hands of Israelis or not. The same sectarian monster that stalks Lebanon and Iraq lives just under the floorboards in Syria. The majority of Syria’s people are Sunni Arabs, but 30 percent or so are Christians, Druze, Alawites, or Kurds. Assad himself is an Alawite, as are most of the elite in the ruling Baath Party, the secret police, and the military. Their very survival depends on keeping Syria’s sectarianism suppressed. The country could easily come apart without Assad’s government enforcing domestic peace at the point of a gun. This is a serious problem. It’s not Israel’s problem, but it’s a problem.

The Israelis have been worried about something else: that after Assad, Syria might be governed by the fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood organization or something that looks a lot like it. There’s no guarantee, though, that the Muslim Brothers would take over. They aren’t in power anywhere else in the Arab world. Even if they do succeed Assad, they couldn’t ramp up the hostility much. Assad’s is already the most hostile Arab government in the world. A replacement regime, especially one dominated by Sunnis rather than by minorities who lack legitimacy and feel they have something to prove, would likely gravitate toward the regional mainstream.

(Read full post)

Stalinism at the Foreign Ministry?

Isi Leibler
Candidly Speaking from Jerusalem
31 December 09

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has a penchant for rubbing against the grain of Israelis with some of his more abrasive statements.

Today’s Jerusalem Post contains an item in which an unnamed Foreign Ministry official accuses Liebermann of trying to initiate a “Stalinist” regime inside the ministry in order to strike fear in the hearts of ministry workers. This came after Lieberman approved the suspension of a senior official accused of having leaked information to the media.

The incident exemplifies the problem prevailing within the Foreign Ministry and other civil service divisions in Israel where too often officials have become so full of themselves that they seem to have lost the plot.

(Read full article)
.