Liberman: Israel doesn’t want a Gaza war but would ‘destroy’ Hamas

Hamas is angry that interview took place because it considers it a move toward normalizatio

In his first ever interview with Palestinian media Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman spoke of a two state solution and military infrastructure in Hamas.

By YASSER OKBI/ MAARIV HASHAVUA, LAHAV HARKOV, JPOST

Liberman1In his first ever interview with Palestinian media, Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman promoted his plan for a two-state solution involving swaps of populated lands.

Liberman told the newspaper Al-Quds on Monday what has long been both his diplomatic plan and that of the Yisrael Beytenu party. It calls for the borders of the two-state solution to be drawn in such a way as to exclude the maximum amount of Israeli Arabs, who would become Palestinian citizens, and to include as many Israeli Jews as possible.

The best path forward, he said, “is an exchange of territories and population.”

Such a plan would put the settlement blocs within Israel’s final borders, but exclude some Arab areas of Israel.

“Why should the Triangle and Umm el-Fahm be part of Israel?” Liberman asked. “Why should I subsidize [Islamic Movement Northern Branch leader Raed] Salah and pay [MK] Haneen Zoabi [Joint List]?” However, Liberman cautioned, such a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would have to be part and parcel of a larger comprehensive agreement with the Arab world. He also said that there is legal backing for his plan. When Liberman was foreign minister, he asked the office’s legal advisers for an opinion on the matter and received an affirmative response in writing.

In the interview, Liberman also said that should another war break out between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip, it would be the last. The interview with Al-Quds is part of Liberman’s policy of circumventing Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in dealing with the Palestinians, in that he is sending messages directly to the Palestinians through their press. This is part of a broader “carrot and stick” model Liberman introduced in August involving harsher punishments for villages from which terrorists originate and economic benefits for those that have not produced terrorists.

Former defense minister MK Amir Peretz (Zionist Union) took issue with this idea, saying that Liberman is showing he prefers Hamas.

“We must take advantage of the infrastructure of the PA and security cooperation with it to promote interim and long-term agreements,” Peretz said. “An interview with Liberman in a Palestinian newspaper is not a problem, but the security Israel deserves can only be achieved with a combination of an uncompromising fight against terrorism and a courageous diplomatic battle working toward a two-state solution for two peoples, with the Palestinian Authority and the international community’s cooperation.”

MK Yousef Jabareen (Joint List), a resident of Umm el-Fahm, spoke out against Liberman’s proposal for his hometown, saying that Liberman is inciting against and delegitimizing residents of the city and all Israeli Arabs.

“I don’t understand why we need to constantly be threatened with our citizenship being revoked, as if our citizenship is a kindness from Liberman and not a basic right in our homeland.

Everyone knows Liberman’s motives are racist and he wants to harm and weaken the Israeli-Arab public,” he said.

The PA’s Foreign Ministry said Liberman, whom they called the “Minister of War,” was proposing a plan that violates international law, the Geneva Conventions and signed agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.

The interview, the ministry continued, was full of “delusions and racist opinions” meant primarily to shore up public opinion on the Israeli Right.

“On the one hand, Liberman proclaims that he is keen on a two-state solution, and on the other hand, he boasts that he is a settler, referring to possible scenarios that destroy the two-state solution and legitimize the occupation, opening the door to more settlement construction in the occupied West Bank, including east Jerusalem, to accomplish his goals,” the PA Foreign Ministry said.

The ministry also called Liberman’s attempts to circumvent the PA “repugnant,” and said Liberman is “delusional in terms of his ability to find a Palestinian partner for peace on his terms…

[which are] a package of empty gestures, economic in their nature, as an alternative to ending the occupation.”

Hamas spokesman Hazem Qassim said in response to Liberman’s statements that “it is the right of people under occupation… to possess the means of force, including military force, that enables the defense of its people against repeated Israeli aggression, and that is a right that is not up for negotiation or debate.”

Adam Rasgon contributed to this report.

October 25, 2016 | 7 Comments »

Leave a Reply

7 Comments / 7 Comments

  1. Israel should not give up land. Period. The Promise should be honored. This is what should happen:

    Representative Walter M. Chandler from New York – I want to make at this time, Mr. Speaker and gentlemen of the House, my attitude and views upon the Arab question in Palestine very clear and emphatic. I am in favor of carrying out one of the three following policies, to be preferred in the order in which they are named:
    (1) That the Arabs shall be permitted to remain in Palestine under Jewish government and domination, and with their civil and religious rights guaranteed to them through the British mandate and under terms of the Balfour declaration.
    (2) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, they shall be required to sell their lands at a just valuation and retire into the Arab territory which has been assigned to them by the League of Nations in the general reconstruction of the countries of the east.
    (3) That if they will not consent to Jewish government and domination, under conditions of right and justice, or to sell their lands at a just valuation and to retire into their own countries, they shall be driven from Palestine by force…On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the “Mandate for Palestine,” confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine—anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea:

    “Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

    “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.” [italics in the original]

    On September 21, 1922, the then President Warren G. Harding signed the joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish National Home in Palestine.

    Here is how members of congress expressed their support for the creation of a National Home for the Jewish people in Palestine – Eretz-Israel (Selective text read from the floor of the U.S. Congress by the Congressman from New York on June 30, 1922). All quotes included in this document are taken verbatim from the given source.

    CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

    1922 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    NATIONAL HOME
    FOR
    THE JEWISH PEOPLE

    JUNE 30, 1922

    HOUSE RESOLUTION 360
    (Rept. NO. 1172)

    http://www.mythsandfacts.org/article_view.asp?articleID=100

  2. Dr. Carson was right!

    Dr. Ben Carson was lambasted for his alleged ignorance of the issue when he referred to Hamas as Hummus.
    Now, I actually saw the full speech he gave before AIPAC on JBS (can’t seem to find it on youtube). It went all the way back and was scholarly, and perceptive – one of the best speeches I ever heard. As President, he would have been as Churchillian a speaker as Bibi, though Donald’s Gettysburgh speech was really excellent.
    But, you know, I wouldn’t have had to see that to know that he was no fool:

    He was right to refer to Hamas as Hummus. Despite the fact that while Hummus is a delicious dip made from crushed sesame seeds and various spices and oils, and Hammas is an eliminationist-anti-semitic (nazi for short) islamo-fascist gang, There is no substantive difference between the two if you think about it. The differences between them are truly differences without a difference. The commonalities are far more significant; They are 2:

    1) Both from the Middle East (There’s no place like Hummus, Hummus Sweet Hummus, Hummus on the Range {That last one’s for you, Honeybee}.)

    2) Both best crushed and devoured!

  3. How about we just wait to see what happens as WWIII gets going in earnest, first the PA falls and soon there after Jordan. Israel will herd the remaining Arab squatters out of both Yehuda v’Shomron and Aza.

  4. why with all the supposed brains in ISRAEL is there no one who can write a non surrender contract? Egypt laid out the rules with their agreement, the Hashemite’s kept what was not theirs in their agreement and now this boy (used in a derogatory term)liberman fails to understand the agreement is prewritten. it’s called u n charter article 80. the land area is written in the ‘book of numbers’ ‘Epaminondas, you ain’t got the sense you was born with!