People are not always what they appear to be. In many cases, observers get carried away by first impressions and do not dig deeper. How Israelis view Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Lieberman is no exception. When right-wing Israelis hear Lieberman, he makes a good first impression. But when they start to observe his behavior, they begin to worry. And when they read what he writes, they may wish to run far away.
Indeed, the contradiction between what Lieberman says during an election campaign and what his party platform actually says is unknown to the vast majority of the public. The fact that most Israelis have not read Lieberman's platform stands behind the great disappointment that many have felt for their leadership over the past two decades.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
During elections, politicians like Lieberman make a lot of promises and encouraging statements. But after they are elected and need to start fulfilling their promises, they follow a different path. Use of inflammatory anti-Arab and anti-haredi rhetoric doesn't demonstrate any great leadership potential. It is usually weak people lacking convincing arguments who resort to curses and incitement. I don't mean that Lieberman's rhetoric is total nonsense, lacking all logic. Rather, Lieberman doesn't reveal the whole truth when he represents himself and his party to voters. Here, in a nutshell, are just some of the differences between his spoken statements and his written platform:
"The Israeli-Arab conflict is not a territorial conflict but a religious one," Lieberman has told his voters. This statement is factual and I am one of those who helped him reach this conclusion. However, Lieberman only used this statement to incite against the Arabs, giving him a boost in the polls. His party's platform includes a canton plan and a vision for exchanging territories where many people live. This is acceptable to those who support a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River, such as Yossi Beilin. It represents their ideological point of view.
But this is the vision of Lieberman, the man who just a moment ago said that the Israeli-Arab conflict is not territorial but religious. If that is the case, how can a territorial exchange end the conflict? All who know the term "Dar al-Islam" understand that Muslims will never compromise in their fight to recover lands that they consider to be Muslim. Is Lieberman just telling us what we want to hear while meaning the opposite?
Perhaps this was just an unintended mistake? Well, at a conference in Jerusalem in 2009, Lieberman said, "Improving the economy will help bring about a solution to terror."
If the conflict is religious, how can an improved economy change it? And why does Lieberman make "leftist" statements like this in closed forums and very different statements where large numbers of right-wing voters are likely to hear him?
Lieberman's voters have chosen to forgive him time and again. When he promised that, if he were appointed defense minister, Hamas chief Ismail Haniyeh would "vanish" within 48 hours, they understood that national and international considerations would prevent such an action. And they forgave him his frequent flip-flopping between the government and the opposition. But in the aftermath of the last election, when he prevented the establishment of a right-wing government and instead joined hands with Yair Lapid, his voters should not let this charade continue.
The State of Israel is currently unable to draft haredim into the IDF. Empty declarations to the contrary by Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid, like his father, the late Justice Minister Tommy Lapid, are motivated by disdain, not a sense of national responsibility. Technically, the IDF is not ready to accept hundreds of thousands of haredim into its ranks since haredi society has special needs that cannot be ignored. For example, the religious beliefs of haredi men preclude them from listening to women sing; we must respect this. Haredim also observe special stringencies regarding kosher food that are sometimes unique for each particular community; this too must be respected. Is the army prepared to cater to these needs? The answer is no.
Lieberman's excuses for opposing the prime minister and preventing the formation of a right-wing government don't come from any sort of idealism but only seek to inflame the secular public. And the worst part is that Lieberman doesn't mean what he says. His actual vision entirely contradicts his statements.
Voters should look for consistency between a politician's words and actions. When it comes to Lieberman, the conclusion is obvious.
