The only question is where did Christoph Schult get his turd polish?

Avi is clearly not a nice man. Making him foreign minister will only hasten the day when the majority of Americans will look at what Israel, that plucky little democracy has become in its dotage.

He's a coward at heart. Wonder how big his talk would be if we weren't propping up his countries military?

I don't think it is fair or justifiable to disparage turds in such a way.

A pragmatic thug.

Interesting how Avigdor Lieberman earns the use of this word pragmatic. Seems to follow in best tradition of NYTs styled pro Israel framing and tinting of what basically most often is thinly disguised pro Israel propaganda flinging.This example coming out of Germany.

In recent days we are told Benny Netanyahu is really pro peace and really is not trying to expunge Palestinian nationhood.

With Israel's recent Gaza attack of random death dealing and wanton destruction rampage coming in for well deserved criticism and condemnation Prime Minister-elect Netanyahu surely seems to be getting lots of polishing so he 'sounds' more reasonable and not so bellicose and zealot Likudnik like.

Somehow it seems only a matter of time before this Netanyahu facade is pulled off and Gaza or West Bank get another dose of famous Israeli 'pragmatism' via the IDF/IAF.

A thug/bigot Avigdor Lieberman as Israeli Foreign Minister.

In view of the present 'moderate' Israeli FM's connections with recent Gaza attack taking place and the quality of mercy not found in that attack this new Israeli FM surely could be a 'pragmatic' choice just never mind his record and well known politics.

Amendable Hamas leaders surely would never be given this pragmatic framing on such favorable terms as Netanyahu and Lieberman are now getting.

But these guys really are pro peace.And pragmatic too. Really.

Someone call Abe Foxman, Haaretz has stuck again!

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1073771.html

...but he does at least understand that demography is destiny. If Israel can't rid itself of the occupied territories -- should have done that a long time ago, back in the good old days of secular Arab nationalism -- it's on track to becoming a binational Arab/Jewish state. That may already be baked in the cake, despite the best efforts of Mitchell and, ironically, Lieberman. A 40+ year occupation, settlement building, Sharon's rampage, and the rise of Islamic groups like Hamas may add up to a one state solution. But hey, you make the bed, you lie in it.

He reflects the true spirit of the country.

Is there anybody in Israel's government who is not a racist thug?

Gimme a fuckin' break, man.

Every morning I wake up with my coffee in hand wondering where is the reason and logic in the middle-east Isreal issue regarding a palastinian state and diplomacy in general. The American diplomacy towards Isreal much be remanaged and retooled to include some leniency towards a Palastinian state. This must be done. America can no longer afford to be best friends with Isreal - an Isreal that is going more conserviative when it should not, getting more nationalistic when it should not, becoming more xenophobic when there is no place for it.! If America had a more equal reasonable view of a 2 state policy, we would not have so many problems with the other Arab states as we do now.

This article by Christoph Schult can be divided into two parts. In the first part, Schult increases the tension from paragraph to paragraph. The picture of Avigdor Lieberman becomes darker and darker. A typical Salon writer or reader might have called this approach a fear-mongering. But Schult is not Cheney; therefore this label is not attached to him.

Look for yourself:

“The man who is set to become Israel's chief diplomat is known for many things, but not his talent for diplomacy. Words like "compromise" or "consideration" have been absent from his vocabulary so far.”

Remember, Lieberman does not even know the words "compromise" or "consideration."

Lieberman’s portrait gets more details:

“His words have the force of cluster bombs. He spares no one.”

Everybody should run for a cover!

According to Schult, Lieberman has managed to antagonize Iranian and Egyptian leaders.

The catastrophe is imminent:

“For many Arab governments the thought of Lieberman as foreign minister is tantamount to a declaration of war. In the United States, where President Barack Obama wants to pursue an "aggressive" policy of peace in the Middle East, the declared foe of the negotiation process may face a cool reception.”

The “aggressive” peace policy of Barack Obama is going to fail because Lieberman refuses to negotiate. I am not sure, though, how peace policy can be aggressive. Typically, aggression is associated with the war. Peace should be achieved on a step-by-step basis.

However, in a second half of his article, Schult makes an 180 degrees turn:

“Lieberman used to align himself with advocates of a Greater Israel, stretching from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River. But he's no fundamentalist Jew for whom the partition of the country would constitute a sacrilege. He lives in a settlement on the West Bank, but he would give up his house for peace, he said recently. "I support a viable Palestinian state," he claims.”

Does it mean that Lieberman is not really a monster, and that he wants peace like a reasonable person?

“Lieberman is fond of combining ideas from the right and the left. For instance, he proposes redrawing the border between Israel and the Palestinian territories, thereby annexing groups of settlements while ceding Arab cities near the border. For this reason, even some moderate Palestinians see Lieberman as a thug who can be a pragmatist.”

So Lieberman can be pragmatic.

“Martin Indyk, one of the U.S. negotiators at the failed Camp David talks in 2000, describes a secret channel of communication between Lieberman and an envoy of then-PLO President Yasser Arafat. According to Indyk, Lieberman agreed in principle to the Barak administration's territorial concessions.”

Can you imagine this? The extremist and stubborn racist agreed with the Labor party leader.

“So is Lieberman a thug with pragmatist tendencies? Such transformations can never be completely ruled out in Israel, the land of extremes. Sharon, the father of settlement construction on Palestinian soil, later withdrew Israeli settlers from the Gaza Strip. His successor, Olmert, wanted to "Judaize" Arab East Jerusalem. Today he advocates dividing the city.”

The picture of Lieberman becomes brighter and brighter.

“Even Lieberman is starting to exhibit symptoms of prudence. A few weeks ago, he paid a visit to a well-known Israeli geographer, who used maps to show Lieberman how Jerusalem, the Holy City, could be divided up between the Jews and the Palestinians. "He was very interested," the geographer said after the meeting.”

According to Schult, Lieberman does not look like evil any more. He looks more like a regular politician. So what was the point of this article? That politicians change their views throughout their political life span, we have already known.