There is no 'new' Lieberman

Avigdor Lieberman came to Washington last week for a “coming out” party. As David Landau and Barak Ravid noted separately in Haaretz, expectations were high that in his speech at the Saban Forum, the “old Lieberman,” the hard-line rabble-rouser and borderline racist, would become the “new Lieberman,” a pragmatic statesman, thoughtful diplomat, and flexible, out-of-the-box political thinker.

A bit wistfully, I shared the hope that Mr. Lieberman would transcend his past and emerge as a serious player on the world stage. After all, his performance during the conflict in Gaza was impressive; he seemed aware that as the likely number two man in Israel’s next government, new responsibilities rested on his shoulders and world leaders were looking to him in a new way.

But I was wrong, and so were others who were hoping for a Lieberman metamorphosis. There is no “new Lieberman.” His speech was a disaster and an embarrassment, leaving his audience – which included the leading figures of America’s foreign policy establishment – shaking their heads in dismay.

And American Jewish leaders who were present and with whom I have spoken were stunned. At a critical moment in Israel’s diplomatic history, how could her foreign minister be so oblivious to the needs of the hour, so simplistic in his analysis, so crude in his political formulations? The Lieberman that they heard showed himself, once again, to be manifestly unsuited for the diplomatic big leagues.

Interviewed at the Forum by NPR journalist Robert Siegel, Lieberman stayed away from rhetoric that was openly inflammatory. Yet his remarks rested on a single substantive point to which he obsessively returned: The Palestinians must build a middle class with a per capita income of $10,000. But, he continued, the Palestinian Authority, inept and corrupt, has been unable to create such a middle class, and until it does so – with Israeli and international help – there will be no peace.

Lieberman, it seems, is more influenced by the Marxist materialism of his youth than he is willing to admit. The leader of a Jewish nationalist movement, Lieberman made no allowance for the possibility that the romance and drama of national self-determination might speak to the hearts of Palestinians. He made no reference to the fact that many nations have come into being without reaching the $10,000 threshold and that most countries of the world support the right of Palestinians to statehood right now. And while claiming Israel’s willingness to negotiate without preconditions, his argument was setting down a clear precondition of his own. Mr. Siegel of NPR was mostly incredulous. If this far-off economic marker was the condition for a Palestinian state, he wondered, why would the United States–or anyone else for that matter – even bother with the issue since there was virtually no chance of success?

Lieberman waved off criticism of Israeli settlements, presenting Israeli settlement activity as a security measure – an argument that convinced no one in the room. And not once in his initial presentation did Lieberman mention a two-state solution. Only toward the end of the session did the interviewer challenge him on this issue, but by that time, Lieberman’s support for the idea seemed an afterthought, more of an empty gesture than a real commitment.

The performance of Lieberman in Washington is deeply troubling on many levels. For the last four years he has been a make-believe Foreign Minister, deployed by his boss to countries in Eastern Europe but kept away from the United States and the real centers of influence. But in the next government, if (as is likely) it is a government of the right, he could very well be the real Foreign Minister. And we should not forget that many now seriously talk of him as a possible successor to Benjamin Netanyahu.

But as we just saw in Washington, Lieberman has learned little from the extremism and intemperate outbursts of his earlier days. The language of democracy and human rights comes to him with great difficulty, if at all. He does not understand the West, and he does not understand America. He has always run his own party like a Russian oligarch. And, as his recent dismissal of the experienced diplomat Danny Ayalon demonstrates, he does not tend to tolerate in his inner circle those who possess the attributes that he lacks.

Writing about Lieberman in Yediot Ahronot on December 2, Nahum Barnea reminded us of how far Israel has travelled since the days of Abba Eban, the country’s first foreign minister. Eban was everything that Lieberman is not: a world class diplomat, a dazzling speaker, a man of deep learning, and at master at connecting with those whose support is essential for Israel’s well-being. At a moment when Israel’s international legitimacy is crumbling and relations with the United States are at a critical phase, Israel needs representatives who – even if they lack Eban’s eloquence – can articulate the values that bind Israel to the western world and to the American government and people.

As we saw again last week, Avigdor Lieberman is not that man.