Mediaboss Marketing

Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman is in over his head.

Few had high hopes for Liberman when he was appointed to his post, but most observers on the political Right were willing to swallow the pill of having a man with an understanding of military and strategic affairs that began and ended with applause lines because his appointment solved two pressing political problems.

Libermans appointment to serve as defense minister brought his Yisrael Beitenu party into the government, which increased the size of the coalition from its razor-thin 61-seat majority to a more healthy 66 seats. Moreover, by appointing him, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was able to remove Moshe Yaalon from the Defense Ministry. Yaalon had become unacceptable to Likud voters due to his rush to convict IDF Sgt. Elor Azaria as guilty of criminal wrongdoing last March when Azaria killed a downed terrorist who had stabbed a fellow soldier in Hebron.

Monday morning Liberman showed that concerns about his suitability for his position were spot on.

Speaking to reporters at the Knesset, Liberman said that growing discussion among leading members of the coalition about applying Israeli law to parts of Judea and Samaria must stop.

Anyone who wants to apply Israeli sovereignty to Judea and Samaria needs to understand that such a step will bring immediate repercussions from the new US government, Liberman alleged.

He added, We received a direct not indirect message: Apply sovereignty and you will be cutting ties with the new administration.

Libermans statement was both ignorant and damaging.

It was ignorant because it critically misrepresented how decisions are made in US administrations.

It isnt hard to guess which Trump administration official is threatening Israel and trying to force the government to abide by the failed and damaging policy of surrendering Jude and Samaria to Palestinian terrorists.

As defense minister, he speaks to his counterpart, US Defense Secretary James Mattis. Mattis is no friend of Israels.

During his confirmation hearings in the Senate, when Senator Lindsay Graham asked him what the capital of Israel is, Mattis replied Tel Aviv.

Mattis also said that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a vital [US] interest.

After being fired from his command of Central Command in 2013, Mattis claimed that the US alliance with Israel harms the US. In his words, I paid a military security price every day as the commander of CentCom because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel, and... moderate Arabs who want to be with us... cant come out publicly in support of people who dont show respect for the Arab Palestinians.

In the same address, Mattis argued that if Israel continues to allow Jews to assert their property rights in Judea and Samaria, it will risk becoming an apartheid state.

When President Donald Trump appointed Mattis, supporters of Israel in the US were willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and hope that his statements were the product of his service in the anti-Israel Obama administration and that once liberated from its intellectual straitjacket, he would abandon his preposterous positions on Israel. Concern over Mattis was abated by the fact that he opposed president Obamas Iran policy.

But last week Mattis made clear that he actually shares Obamas worldview when he decided to appoint Anne Patterson to serve as his undersecretary of defense for policy. Patterson, who served as assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs under Obama, is a harsh critic of Israel and an apologist for the Palestinian Authoritys support for terrorism.

In testimony before Congress in April 2014 for instance, Patterson defended the PAs practice of paying salaries to Palestinian terrorists and their families. The payments are legitimate, she told lawmakers, because they need to provide for the families.

Last year, when Mahmoud Shalan, a Palestinian terrorist with US citizenship was shot by soldiers at a checkpoint after he tried to kill them, and later died of his wounds, Patterson demanded an explanation from Israel for his death.

As Steven Flatow, father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered by Palestinian terrorists in Gaza in 1995, noted in an article at JNS news service, Patterson did not demand that the PA provide an explanation for why Shalan, who was a resident of the PA, was engaged in terrorism against Israelis.

Before being appointed to head the State Departments Near East bureau, Patterson served as Obamas ambassador to Egypt from 2011 to 2013, during tumult that saw two leaders outed in so many years.

Patterson supported the overthrow of longtime US ally then-president Hosni Mubarak.

She supported the Muslim Brotherhood regime that replaced him.

She urged Christians and others who were being persecuted by the Muslim Brotherhood regime not to demonstrate against it. She supported Morsis moves to seize tyrannical power and transform Egypt into an Iranian-allied Islamic state.

After the military overthrew Morsi and his regime, Patterson supported cutting off US military assistance to the regime of President Abdel Fattah Sisi.

For her pro-Muslim Brotherhood positions, Patterson became one of the most hated people in Egypt and a symbol of the Obama administrations abandonment of Egypt.

Mattiss decision to appoint Patterson was rejected by the White House, on the basis of Pattersons record in Egypt and at the State Department.

The Patterson episode shows that Mattis continues to embrace Obamas policy of supporting Islamists and opposing US allies. The White Houses rejection of Patterson shows that Mattis is not in charge of policymaking, the White House is.

The fact that Liberman has represented Mattiss threats to Israel as the official policy of the Trump administration indicates that he doesnt understand either who Mattis is, or how decisions are made in US administrations generally or how they are made in the Trump administration in particular.

Moreover, by claiming that Mattiss positions are US policy, Liberman insulted Trump, attributing policymaking powers to Trumps appointed adviser that belong to the president alone.

Trump, for his part, has clearly not made a determination of where he stands on the disposition of Judea and Samaria. But he has made clear that he has no intention of striking out at Israel. He similarly made clear that he has no intention of maintaining Obamas position, which Patterson communicated to Congress, of supporting payoffs to Palestinian terrorists.

If this werent reason enough to be appalled by Libermans deeply destructive statement, the fact is that this isnt the main problem with it.

Libermans argument that Israel must maintain allegiance to the failed and destructive policy of empowering the PLO lest it wreck its ties to America is most destructive because it undermines Israeli democracy and Israels international position. Libermans statement invites indeed begs for a foreign government to threaten Israel in order to cow elected officials and the public into accepting a policy they rightly reject and abandoning discussion of an alternative path that advances Israels strategic interests.

In behaving in this manner, Liberman is adopting the anti-democratic practice of Israels political Left. Incapable of winning the publics support for their obsessive agenda of giving land to Palestinian terrorists, for years, leftist politicians like former justice minister Tzipi Livni have threatened the public and her fellow elected officials that if they dare step away from the disastrous policy, Israeli officials and citizens will face war crimes indictments in international courts.

To his great discredit, Prime Minister Netanyahu began engaging in this sort of behavior recently as he warned that passage of the Settlements Regulation Law would expose Israel to war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court.

Netanyahu was substantively ridiculous. There is no international legal basis for such charges. On its own, the ICC would be unlikely to initiate such proceedings, given their legal weakness. But by arguing that action by the ICC would be a reasonable response to the law, Netanyahu created the political opening for anti-Israel lawfare by the ICC.

After all, if the prime minister himself is saying such charges will ensue, far be it for ICC prosecutors to disagree with him.

This practice of alleging foreign opposition and so inviting foreigners to attack Israel in order to prevent Israels elected officials from loyally performing their duties in accordance with the wishes of their constituents has always been harmful to the country.

Libermans false statement regarding the purported policies of the Trump administration brings this practice to a new low.

Liberman should issue an immediate clarification.

Prime Minister Netanyahu should reject Libermans statement. And both men should affirm their commitment to Israeli democracy and the power of elected officials to determine the course of the nation in accordance with Israel law and on basis of their assessments of Israels national interests.

Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin

Read the original here:
Our World: Avigdor Liberman vs. Israeli democracy - Jerusalem Post Israel News