The Arabization of Israeli Politics?

Whatever happened to Vice President Joe Biden’s memorable streak of "loud" comments? For example Biden declared that a "withering" Russia will bend to the West and America (WSJ, 7/25/09) and that Israel was entitled to attack Iran (ABC, 7/05/09).

We haven't heard any controversial declarations from Joe in some time probably after Rahm Emmanuel or some other pit-bull from the Obama administration reminded Biden that his foreign relations credentials were only required to bolster Obama's election campaign.

Juxtapose that with an un-muzzled Avigdor Lieberman-the outspoken leader of the Yisrael Beitenu (Israel is our Home) party, and current foreign minister of Israel. This is unusual because like America, Israel's bite is usually bigger than its bark.

Bush’s "War on Terrorism" is a perfect example, of a monumental understatement, Bush should have called it the "50 years war on global terror". A similar example followed Israel’s warning to Hamas in Gaza to halt two years of rocket fire. When Hamas continued its spiteful ways Israel followed up with a devastating campaign, a continued blockade, and the promise to be just as "disproportional” in the future if Hamas terror continued.

If Israel’s bite is bigger than its bark then the Arab world’s bark is historically bigger than its bite. Indeed if the Arab states and Iran share anything in common it is their propensity to make broad, bold, and often outrageous remarks. Take for example Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, recent declarations that the West can expect a punch in the face on the anniversary of the Iranian "Islamic Revolution" (Washington Times 02/09/10). Syrian dictator, Bashar al-assad, announced that an Israeli attack on Lebanon, Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran would result in Syrian attacks “inside your cities”-read Israel’s citizens ( JPOST 03/02/10).Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan ,has only recently put a lid on a string outrageous statements following the Davos fiasco. Erdogan is on record asserting that Sudan’s president Omar al-bashir is innocent of the charge of "crimes against humanity" in Darfur because "it is not possible for those who belong to the Muslim faith to carry out genocide" (GurdianUk 11/10/09).

Some anthropologists, like Raphael Patai author of "The Arab Mind", see this is a cultural/societal trait of Arab overstatement (though that doesn’t account for Turkey and Iran both of which are not ethnically Arab). Others seasoned political analysts see this type of outspoken rhetoric as a crude but effective method, habitually used by Middle-Eastern autocrats to deflect criticism from their own failed leadership.

Either way this type of bluster is EXPECTED from the Arab Middle-East. So when Avigdor Lieberman started responding bluntly to commonplace genocidal threats emanating from Israel’s unhappy neighbors it came as a surprise. Indeed, Israel’s response to Turkish provocations, led to highly unnecessary diplomatic gaff of overtly criticizing the Turkish ambassador to Israel, and placing him in a visibly lower seat -which achieved what? We can assume that these actions were taken at the behest of the Israel’s Foreign minister Lieberman.

It also requires a closer look.

One possible explanation is that Lieberman’s vocalizations of his beliefs are expected by his political base, primarily Eastern-European immigrants who are used to that type of Putin bluntness. Thus it does not reflect a permanent shift in Israeli politics, but rather it is an ephemeral development, that is a necessary bi-product of a Netanyahu coalition that relies heavily on Lieberman’s political base.

This may also explain why Netanyahu has not really challenged Lieberman's remarks; on the contrary he probably took them into account in his final decision to include Liebermanls party in his center-right coalition.

Alternatively, Lieberman as the foreign minister is responding to remarks whose source has not been paralleled since the Yom-Kippur war (1973). In other words, from 1973 until Ahmadinejad’s rise to power in 2005, no local power has been so open and outspoken about their desire to destroy Israel. Thus Lieberman feels that this situation is an exception that requires an exceptional Israeli response.

Another potential explanation, could point to a permanent shift in Israeli diplomacy. This could be the result of Israel feeling abandoned by the International community or Israel finally starting to assert itself.As such, like China, Brazil, or India, Israel is a burgeoning power, whose technological genius, and socio-political makeup (Israel is the most diverse country in the Middle-East) -despite its resource-thin geography and constant attacks from its neighbors- has made for a nation which is on the brink of joining the exclusive developed country club(Bloomberg 6/16/2009). Lieberman’s statements may just reflect a country sick and tired of being verbally bullied, especially when Israel is the biggest kid on the block.

Finally, this may be a political manifestation of Israel absorbing the culture that they have become submerged in. Perhaps it is a side-effect of Israel’s growing strategic-ties with the Western leaning Arab-block, Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. It is possible that like the ancient kingdoms of Israel, modern Israel is displaying on its proverbial borders the first signs of cultural influence in the form of political arabzation.