Divo Giulio

Former Italian Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti used to quip that holding people in low esteem might be a sin, but at least you can hardly go wrong. In diplomacy, lying might be a sin but at least it keeps you from being ostracized.

Whoever does not lie to himself about the true causes of the Arab-Israeli conflict and about the chances of resolving it is automatically banned from polite society. Such is the fate of Avigdor Lieberman.

Western media systematically depict Lieberman’s party (Israel Beiteinu) as extreme or far-right wing, and keep claiming that his platform is based on the forced transfer of Arabs. Many journalists are simply lazy and follow the herd. But most of them, especially those who are posted in Israel, know that they are lying when they describe Lieberman the way they do.

What, exactly, is far-right wing about a party that supports the creation of a Palestinian state and that has a liberal (if not anti-clerical) social agenda (such as promoting civil unions and loosening the grip of Israel’s Orthodox rabbinate over people’s lives)? Israel Beiteinu may have a strongly patriotic rhetoric and platform (which are hardly followed by action and legislation) but, in truth, its ideology is closer to the defunct Shinui party than to the National Union. Indeed, when Tzipi Livni tried to form a coalition with Lieberman after the 2009 elections, she kept insisting (rightly) that Kadima and Israel Beiteinu have similar platforms when it comes to the Palestinian issue and to matters of state and religion. Only after she failed to cut a deal with Lieberman, did Livni join the choir by describing him as a madcap extremist.

Similarly, foreign leaders and journalist demonize Lieberman out of hypocrisy and laziness. It is because Lieberman challenges the political correctness and institutionalized lies of Western chancelleries and Arab leaders that he is blacklisted.

Take The Economist. It wrote last week (“Keep on fudging,” Sept. 23rd) that “the pre-1967 line separating Israel from the Palestinian territories should be adjusted, so long as the Palestinians get land swaps of equal size and quality” and that Benjamin Netanyahu “would do well to dump Avigdor Lieberman, the rough-edged foreign minister, whose far-right group still wants to “transfer” Arab-populated parts of Israel to a future Palestinian state.” What The Economist is saying is that Lieberman should be fired for agreeing with The Economist. For Lieberman does support land swaps. Except that he’d rather swap Jewish-populated parts of a future Palestinian state with Arab-populated parts of the State of Israel than with unpopulated lands. What’s wrong with that? Is The Economist insinuating that the presence of Arab populations is the in the to-be-swapped lands is likely to affect the “quality” of these lands?

Or take Nicolas Sarkozy, who has compared Lieberman to Jean-Marie Le Pen. When Sarkozy hosted Mahmoud Abbas at the Élysée on Monday, he wondered out loud why the seventeen year-old “peace process” between Israel and the Palestinians is still a process with no peace in sight. There must be “method” problem said Sarkozy. Of course, the problem is not methodical, but conceptual. The Palestinians are at war with Israel not because of 1967 but because of 1948. This is why there was no peace before 1967 and this is why proposals to return to the pre-1967 status-quo (with minor changes) have been rejected by Arafat (in July and December 2000) and by Abbas (in September 2008).

Lieberman’s speech at the General Assembly on Tuesday accurately analyzed the reasons for the failure of the “peace process,” effectively deconstructed the Middle-Eastern mythology, and thankfully offered a realistic way of managing the conflict. What a sinner: he said the truth. Indeed, Lieberman might as well be the antichrist himself. To quote Andreotti again: "We learn from the Gospel that when they asked Jesus what the truth was, he did not reply."