quote:

---

Less than a week after being appointed to the Israeli cabinet, ultra-nationalist Avigdor Lieberman called for Israel to become "as much as possible" an all-Jewish country without an Arab minority.

---

quote:

---

Michel Warschawski: In Israel, no one has any rights just by being a citizen. Rights—the parliamentary immunity of Arab MKs; the right to run for office if you fail to meet certain political or ideological criteria (which can change whenever the parliamentary majority changes); the legal existence of a party whose program says that the notions of “Jewish state” and “democratic state” are mutually contradictory; the citizenship of Arabs who supposedly have ties with “terrorism,” etc.—can be abolished by majority vote.

---

The author of The New Israel outlines some of the legal practices and how things work:

quote:

---

Fifty years after independence, the behavior of the State of Israel and its political class still reveals a certain slippage between the state, the ruling parties and the politicians, and between a binding legal framework and interests that cannot be contained in that framework. Corruption is one example, of course. But there are also political and military practices that violate the law but the executive branch considers necessary, such as the use of torture and extrajudicial executions.

---

Warshawski notes that Israeli law is fundamentally different from what Canadians might expect. It's different because of (a) denial, and (b) the use of personalized legislation.

On denial:

quote:

---

The State of Israel resorts to two mechanisms to finesse these contradictions. The first is outright denial, which leads to veritable schizophrenia. We have witnessed this mechanism at work in the intelligence services, police, and public prosecutors’ systematic lies about the use of torture; their lies in court ultimately led to a serious institutional crisis and the formation of a national commission of inquiry. Another example: denying the existence of the Israeli nuclear arsenal has prevented establishing safeguards.

---

On personalized legislation:

quote:

---

What happens if the law (in fact a “fundamental law”) requires that candidates for the post of prime minister be members of the Knesset, but Benjamin Netanyahu, who wants to run, is not in the Knesset?* The fundamental law is amended so that Netanyahu can run. Another example: a former minister is in jail for corruption, a big campaign is waged for his release, and a law is adopted allowing certain prisoners to be released after serving half their sentences. Another: a fundamental law limits the size of the government to seventeen ministers, but Ehud Barak, in order to have the broadest possible coalition, has promised cabinet posts to about thirty politicians, and the fundamental law is changed.

Since laws—including laws with a constitutional character—can be changed to satisfy individual interests or the needs of the moment, why not just skip the process of lawmaking altogether? Shaul Mofaz, former head of the army high command, announced his candidacy for the Knesset last year although the “cooling-off period” required by law between his retirement and the elections had not yet expired. Mofaz’s argument before the Electoral Commission was almost refreshingly straightforward: if he had been paying attention, changing the law would have been no problem. The only reason the law wasn’t changed was pure forgetfulness. So let’s pretend it has been and stop wasting time.

---

In conclusion, therefore,

quote:

---

The flexibility of laws is one corollary of the absence of a concept of rights in Israeli democracy. Even when rights are mentioned explicitly, as in the fundamental laws adopted during the years of the liberal interval, they are always conditional: “provided that no law exists to the contrary,” or “except in case of emergency,” or “if this does not contradict the Jewish character of the State of Israel.” In short, fundamental rights exist—like the principles of gender equality and equality between citizens of different faiths—unless the parliament has decided democratically, that is, by a simple parliamentary majority, to infringe them.

---

Apparently, Lieberman has a history of such remarks.

quote:

---

What could be more natural therefore than MK Avigdor Liberman’s party’s taking the next step and proposing in its election platform to strip Israelis who defame Israel of their nationality, explicitly mentioning rebellious soldiers and officers, former MK Uri Avnery and lawyer Lea Tsemel?

---

This was published 2 years ago.

quote:

---

WHY DOES Ehud Olmert court this man? Why does he insist on including him in his government and agreeing to vote for his proposals? Why is Libermania fast becoming the hottest topic in Israeli politics?

Simply: Olmert, completely bankrupt, is clutching at straws.

Only seven months after becoming Prime Minister by a stroke of luck - Ariel Sharon's stroke - he is left with nothing, and right with nothing, too, it seems:. The public already understands that the Lebanon War, in all its facets, was a total fiasco. His refusal to appoint a Judicial Commission of Inquiry has deepened the feeling of defeat. The central slogan of his election campaign - "Convergence" - has become a bad joke. >From the famous "Social Agenda" nothing has remained. Olmert & Co. have been left without any plan, any mission, except one: to hold on to power at any price.

---

Some more details about Liberman:

quote:

---

AVIGDOR LIBERMAN is a clever person. It is not easy to nail down his views. They are always formulated in a slick and elusive way. But the rule applies to him: When you see him, you will know.

When he came to Israel from the Soviet Union, he already brought with him a racist outlook. He wants a purely Jewish state, with no Arabs. For this, he is prepared, so he says, even to give up Israeli territory in which a dense Arab population is living. He proposes to get these citizens out of Israel, together with the land they are living on. Not a second Naqba, God forbid: the Arabs will not be driven from their lands, as then, but will be expelled together with their land. In return, Israel will annex the territories on which the settlers, one of whom is Liberman himself, are living.

What's wrong with that? The basic idea is wrong: the turning of Israel into a state "cleansed" of Arabs. In German that would be called "Araber-rein". (Actually, it's an inversion of the Nazi phrase: not Juden-rein, but Rein-für-Juden. That is clearly a racist slogan, which appeals to the most primitive instincts of the masses.

The chances of this actually happening are, of course, nil. But the very voicing of this idea prepares the way for something even worse: the simple expulsion of the masses of Arabs from Israel proper and the occupied territories. Without euphemisms, without exchanges of territory, without any kind of spin. Once the fascist genie gets out of the bottle, no power can stop it before it leads to disaster.

The annexation of the settlements will, of course, put an end to any chance of peace.

---

Finally:

quote:

---

When Rome was in danger from the approaching Carthaginian army, the cry went up: "Hannibal ante portas!" We should now raise the cry: "Liberman at the gate!"

---

quote:

---

Cueball: You would think that Olmert would have the principles to let his government fall rather than let this man into cabinet. But no, that is not the case apparently.

---

The author of the ZNet article that I've linked to points out:

quote:

---

He is making Olmert a seductive offer: he would join the government and bring with him his 11 votes in Parliament - without anything in return. Literally for nothing. ...

An offer that cannot be refused. Liberman knows that the title is unimportant. What is important is to get his foot in the door and gain legitimacy as a minister. The rest will come in due course.

For the despairing Olmert, out to hold on to power, this looks like a gift from heaven. He has opponents in the government, especially in the Labor Party. His parliamentary majority is not safe. And here comes Liberman and provides him with complete security in office. People have sold their souls to the devil for less.

---

The author compares Olmert to another historical figure - Franz von Papen. Hence the title of the article.