Home

On March 9, Foreign Policy's Joshua Keating wrote the following headline on a post on the magazine's Web site: "Will the U.S. shun Foreign Minister Lieberman?"

The question means to ask whether the Obama administration will refuse to deal with the new Israeli Knesset if it is led by the Likud's Binyamin Netanyahu, with Israel Beiteinu's Avigdor Lieberman as his foreign minister.

Contra Keating and Co., Lieberman is a fervent supporter of the two-state solution. But he's also considered to be right-wing, which is the single nicest name anyone in the West has ever called him.

What's striking about the above question, however, is its implicit admission that -- irony of ironies -- Netanyahu has no peace partners.

Influential American newspapers have asked the Obama administration to steer clear of a Bibi-Lieberman government. During the presidential election, Obama revealed his disdain for Likud, with a statement almost identical to the one the anti-Israel extremist Chas Freeman made in a recent interview. The interview took place after Freeman's nomination as intelligence chief was withdrawn when it became known he supported the Tiananmen Square massacre, was on the Saudi and Chinese payrolls, and believed U.S. support for Israel to be the cause of 9/11.

The Israeli daily Haaretz pleaded for Kadima leader Tzipi Livni to go into the opposition instead of joining Netanyahu in a unity government. In a statement that was simply a paragon of obtuseness, the newspaper's columnist Merav Michaeli wrote: "If [Livni] wants to bring hope, as she has repeatedly said, a broad-based government is, as she put it, the wrong place to look."

A broad, unified governing coalition is bad for "hope"; it would be better, apparently, to leave Bibi with a narrow coalition and then attempt repeatedly to bring down the government, forcing another lost half-decade onto the peace process and alienating every Israeli voter who supported the coalition (which is the majority of them).

"Let me say very clearly that the way the European Union will relate to an (Israeli) government that is not committed to a two-state solution will be very, very different," Javier Solana, Lieberman's EU counterpart, warned, assuming that Bibi would be hostile to whatever the EU considers the peace process.

Bibi, of course, has some innovative economics-based ideas about how to move the Palestinian people toward self-governance. If implemented, they surely come with a better shot at success than the failed policies of the past, which have led thus far to intifadas and lots of dead Jews and Palestinians.

As he looks to employ those methods, he will be seeking partners to work with. But will he find anyone? Livni has already said she is uninterested in working with Bibi toward a peace deal. Solana let Bibi know the EU won't be looking to cooperate with him. The Obama administration has briefed reporters about its intention to ignore Bibi unless he plays by the administration's rules. The Labor Party initially warned Ehud Barak it will replace him if he joins Bibi's government. And the bright, moderate Palestinian financial guru Salam Fayyad tendered his resignation to the Palestinian Authority -- one of Hamas's main demands for forming a unity government with Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah.

So what's the purpose of the world's intended alienation of the will of the Israeli people? Shmuel Rosner, writing at Commentary's Web site, explained that Bibi will be "held hostage" by the "rest of the world". "With Netanyahu having the image-challenged Lieberman alongside him, and the right-wing coalition limiting him, the temptation for the ‘rest of the world' to adopt a blame-Netanyahu-first policy will be quite hard to resist," Rosner wrote.

Rosner is perceptive; ever since he left Haaretz in favor of quality publications, he has been a keen observer of between-the-lines politics. And here he reveals the scheme: the "international community" will hope for failure, blame Bibi, and pat itself on the back for torpedoing any chance of Palestinian economic improvement.

If Bibi fails, make sure you internalize the pictures of Israelis under constant rocket fire and suffering Palestinian refugee camp residents. Then ask your White House: Are you proud? Ask the European Union: Is this what you had in mind? Ask Livni: Was it worth it? Ask Hamas: What's it like to have your elections respected by the international community, because Israel's sure aren't?

I have a quiz for you. Guess which one of the following is not like the others: Bibi Netanyahu; Syrian President and Hezbollah sponsor Bashar al-Assad; Iranian genocide sponsor and Holocaust denier Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; the leadership of the terrorist Hamas organization dedicated to Israel's destruction.

You probably said "Bibi." You're right, but not for the reasons you might think. The answer is, Bibi is the only member of that list the new U.S. administration opposes negotiating with.

Livni explained her decision to end coalition talks with Bibi thus: "Our concept of a national unity government has not changed. It's not about the number of ministers, nor the number of parties in it. True unity exists when two parties which gained the public's trust come together on an equal basis."

A fairly nebulous statement, to be sure, but a revealing one; Livni opposes cooperating with someone that doesn't agree with her. Funny -- the "international community" feels the same way.

And Bibi, looking for someone to work with, stands alone.

Seth Mandel is the managing editor of The Jewish State.