You say:

"From the perspective of a moral Jewish democracy, Lieberman is a strategic threat."

And I can only add:

"From the perspective of a moral American democracy, Lieberman is a strategic threat."

Easy and cheap I know. But kinda tasty.

If you had written this item at TNR, Marty would have had you knee-capped.

Where is Noam Lamont when Israel needs him? Noam Lamontstein, maybe? Heck, maybe Alan Schlesinger can use his debate performances over here to catapult himself into the race over there?

"From the perspective of a moral American democracy, Lieberman is a strategic threat."

Given our recent hesitancy to balk at disastrous and immoral Israeli policies, this is pretty much the case, keeping the same Lieberman Spencer had in mind.

Does he actually advocate expelling Arabs? I thought he just wanted to make the largely Arab areas not part of Israel anymore. In any case, Olmert didn't sign on to that, as it wasn't in the coalition agreement, so this entire post seems misleading. Shas was already in the coalition, but that has only slowed the government's interest in a civil marriage law.

Splitting hairs. Its like saying we are not getting rid of New Yorkers, just New York.

Also, there is a good chance "strategic threats" according to Leiberman is the growing number of Israeli Arabs.

However, Olhmert is the sort of politician we must assume is acting out of stupidity until proved otherwise.

"What Avigdor Lieberman's merry men advocate is, to be blunt, ethnic cleansing: as the creepy name (which translates into "Our Home Is Israel") suggests, Yisrael Beiteinu believes the million-plus Arab citizens of Israel must be expelled."

Brian Ulrich is correct that the idea of expelling Arabs from Israel by changing the borders to remove them is in fact widespread in Israel. There is pervasive support for ethnic cleansing of one sort or another, mostly under the guise of 'peace' proposals.

the creepy name (which translates into "Our Home Is Israel")

I always thought the name was a deliberate echo of the name of the Russian nationalist party "Nash Dom--Rossiya." Isn't it just supposed to appeal to recent Russian immigrants?

Given that Olmert was raised on the mother's milk of Jabotinskyism (literally) from birth, was a member of the far right youth movement that was the Irgun's equivalent of the Hitler Youth, it is completely unsurprising to discover that the tiger really can't get rid of his stripes. Olmert has always been a Jewish fascist, cloaked in the camouflage of complete opportunism, but no more.

And now the Jewish Establishment in America can look at the reality of a Jewish State operating on the same principles as the Nazi State - the Jews are going to run their own Holocaust?

What a terrible day for people who used to think that Zionism was a good thing.

Why bother throwing around charges of ethnic cleansing when he's already called for the execution of Arab Knesset members who met with members of the Hamas government?

First Ehud Olmert launched an immoral war against Lebanon in response to Hezbollah's aggression against Israel.

Immoral how?

And why is that we always see Israel being condemned around here when it is responding to the deliberate murder of its citizens or when its soldiers are kidnapped?

The other sickening thing here is that folding in 11 new seats necessarily means to some around here that Israel will now began a campaign of ethnic cleansing.

Disgusting, disgusting, disgusting.

I might almost confuse this place with the UN's "reformed" Human Rights Commission.

Haaretz has called Avigdor a fascist. Time for TAPPED to roll out a new appellation. Avigdor Leiberman: Judeofascist.

You know, Specialist, you're right. Israel was responding to attacks by a faction inside of Lebanon that killed several people. Therefore, their campaign to bomb large parts of Lebanon to rubble is absolved of any and all moral responsibility for the deaths of innocent civilians.

By the same token, the British government had every right to cluster bomb the Catholic neighborhoods of Belfast in the 1970s. The federal government most certainly would have been on firm moral ground if they had burned Little Italy and Hell's Kitchen to the ground during the Prohibition era. And the Black Panthers would have been on the side of the angels if they had car-bombed the statehouse in Alabama back in the 1960s.

Oh, I'm sure you can point out all sorts of differences between these situations. But hey, when you're responding to violence, you can't let technicalities get in the way of your morally righteous collective reprisals, now can you?

And we shouldn't let tenuous analogies get in the way of moral outrage, right, ajl?

Had the government of Lebanon, or the Palestinian Authority, themselves attempted to reign in the terrorist attacks launched against Israel from within their borders, Israel would have had no need to use the measures it did in the recent conflict; however, both those parties (the Lebanese government, and the PA)supported the terror activities, as did Syria and Iran, so the analogies posted above (Black Panthers, prohibition violence, etc...) are laughable; likewise, the violence of the IRA, even though it did have some supporters in the government, was roundly condemned, and a variety of measures taken to prevent it, thus, negating the need for a wider British response. Had the Irish government as an institution, and neighboring states surrounding the UK, supported, given refuge, armed and encouraged the violence of the IRA, no doubt you would have seen a response from the UK on par with that of Israel's, since, in effect, that would have been a state of war, which is still the situation between Israel and most of the neighboring Arab states. Those states which do at least try to reign in terror directed at Israel (Egypt, and Jordan, for example, which have peace treaties with Israel,teaties that are at times successful, at times not so much, but still better than before) do not receive the kind of response to attacks launched from their soil that was necessitated by this summer's situation with Lebanon, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, and the other front with Hamas in the West Bank and Gaza.

zqdvntu odehqjfg khsdn osgd pchkofzg cyworq hbwpf

zqdvntu odehqjfg khsdn osgd pchkofzg cyworq hbwpf

zqdvntu odehqjfg khsdn osgd pchkofzg cyworq hbwpf

zqdvntu odehqjfg khsdn osgd pchkofzg cyworq hbwpf