Lieberman is no fascist

Proposal to trade West Bank settlements for Arab-Israeli towns not immoral

Rami Tal|Published: 04.17.06 , 09:30

Israel Our Home, one of the parties that scored an impressive achievement in the recent general elections, has been characterized as "fascist" of late by elements aiming to keep it out of the coalition.

Most of those making the claim have no idea what fascism is.

Fascism is an ideology that sees the state as an "organic" body enjoying a separate existence and superiority to the whole of its citizens. In essence, a moderate fascistic element can be found in every "patriotic" party. Only a party that believes the state is nothing but a tool for collecting taxes, maintaining roads, and building sewage systems is completely free from any fascist stain, and such parties are almost non-existent in the Western world.

The ideological basis is emphasized to a greater extent in Israel Our Home than it is in the Likud, the Labor Party, and Kadima. Most of all, this ideology is based on the writings of Ze'ev Jabotinsky. As such, the party represents Jabotinsky's spirit much more than the party that claimed him as its own, the Likud - particularly in its current format and makeup.

It's interesting to note that Jabotinsky, too, was accused of "fascism" by his rivals, and that accusation was also baseless.

The most serious attack directed at Israel Our Home focuses on the proposal put forth by its leader, Avigdor Lieberman, to hand over in the framework of a peace deal parts of Israel, along with their Arab inhabitants, to the Palestinian state to be formed.

However, this attack should also be examined in a level-headed, practical manner.

Lieberman believes that the attachment Arab citizens of Israel, who constitute about 20 percent of the population, share with residents of the West Bank and Gaza could make Israel crumble from inside. He claims that in almost every country that is home to two or more peoples, nationalistically motivated conflicts erupt (with the exception of the United States, which enjoys unique circumstances.)

This happens even in democratic countries like Spain (the Basques,) Belgium (Flemish versus Walloons,) Canada (English speakers versus French speakers,) etc.

Here, the conflict is not only nationalistic, but rather, religious as well, and therefore it is doubly severe. Therefore, Lieberman says, the solution must be in the form of separation. That way we may be able to eventually enjoy good neighborly relations with the Arabs, while a life of "togetherness" is destined to produce ongoing conflict, which would only get worse and eventually bring disaster to both peoples.

The truth of the matter is that Israel's founding fathers very much adopted the path proposed by Israel Our Home, even if they did not declare it so explicitly. The Law of Return serves as unequivocal proof that founders of the State were concerned about the country's Jewish character. Indeed, the law constitutes clear discrimination against anyone who is not Jewish.

The handing over of territory to a Palestinian state is not a transfer, because we are not talking about moving people from their homes. No Arab citizen would be removed from his or her home, but merely live under Palestinian rule.

The 1949 armistice lines are not sacred, just as the 1967 cease-fire lines are not final. A certain measure of "sanctity" and finality only exist when it comes to borders marked through a permanent agreement struck via negotiations.

In talks between Israel and Palestine we would be able to propose the exchange of populated territories – Israeli settlements in the West Bank in exchange for Arab-Israeli communities.

If we show generosity, and agree to provide the social benefits customary in Israel to the Arabs that agree to leave us for a period of at least two generations, the Arab side may agree to consider our offer.

In any case, there is nothing that should hinder, either politically or morally, putting such proposal on the agenda.