Today is the time to get rid of illusions.
This week, the Minister of National Infrastructure and leader of the “Yisrael Beiteinu” party, Avigdor Lieberman, made a number of statements that most commentators interpreted as a prelude to the withdrawal of the “Yisrael Beiteinu – National Union” faction from the government. A decision to leave the government had already been made earlier by the secretariat of “Moledet,” one of the parties in the parliamentary bloc. The other two parties — “Tkuma” and “Yisrael Beiteinu” — delayed their decision, awaiting a meeting with the Prime Minister scheduled for midweek.
The meeting took place. Avigdor Lieberman shared with us its results and his view of the current situation.
— As we understand, after your meeting with Ariel Sharon, you decided not to leave the government, although you had been close to doing so. What happened during the meeting?
— In recent weeks, we indeed considered the possibility of leaving the government. This government was elected primarily to ensure the security of its citizens and to put an end to terrorism. However, our position on this issue is not destructive, but constructive. There is always the option of slamming the door, shedding responsibility, and plunging the country into a third election within two years. But our goal is to achieve results, to use our influence within the government when making strategically important decisions, as much as possible.
Under Barak, we were in “complete opposition,” because the previous government’s strategy was fundamentally flawed. Today, however, the government’s strategy aligns with our priorities — not the “peace process,” but security. Tactical disagreements should be resolved within the framework of government work, where there are far greater opportunities to do so.
Our meeting with the Prime Minister was long, and many tough questions were raised. I cannot disclose the details of the explanations we received, as they relate to state security. But contrary to what commentators claim, it was not Sharon who convinced us to remain in the government — we convinced him of the need to change tactics. I believe that Israelis will soon notice this shift.
— What is your assessment of the current situation?
— I believe that the Palestinian Authority has forfeited its right to exist after the wave of bloody terrorist attacks carried out with the knowledge and support of its leadership. It has long been clear to me that Arafat, by his nature, is incapable of governing a state, addressing social and economic issues, or developing infrastructure. He is a professional terrorist; his power is built on blood and violence. Therefore, the idea that Arafat seeks peace and coexistence is fundamentally false.
To ensure security, we must first completely dismantle the infrastructure of Palestinian terrorism — all buildings belonging to the so-called Palestinian police, military facilities, warehouses — and disarm the militants. As a further step, I propose dividing the autonomy into four separate enclaves, without any “corridors” or “passages.” Each enclave has its own specific challenges, which we would address based on practical, strategic, and economic considerations.
A centralized autonomous authority would otherwise remain a “Damocles’ sword” hanging over the heads of Israelis, regardless of age, gender, or political views, since today almost all active leaders of the autonomy represent one or another terrorist structure. There are virtually no moderate figures left willing to build relations with us.
We are partly to blame for this ourselves. For a long time, Israel encouraged terrorists while abandoning its allies and friends. After the withdrawal of the IDF, there was a wave of executions against those who had cooperated with Israel. And the well-known humanitarian Yossi Beilin responded: “I do not recall that this contradicts the Oslo agreements.” The same happened with the South Lebanon Army. It is no surprise that today no one is eager to embrace us.
Alongside the immediate and necessary measures to ensure security, there are broader issues of coexistence that will require considerable time to resolve.
For nearly ten years, we have followed a misguided path, increasingly complicating the situation. Unwilling to learn from others’ mistakes, we made our own. Today is the time to draw conclusions, abandon illusions, and adopt a clear, pragmatic approach to solving these painful problems.
