Subjective Journalism Gone Wild II: Israeli FM Lieberman is Not the New Kahane

“They're right, the villains - Kahane does live. He is the foreign minister today and the cabinet speaks and breathes from his mouth” (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/lieberman-is-the-new-kahane-1.336296)

Haaretz.com, the voice of the Israeli left-wing, got it wrong. Avigdor Lieberman, foreign minister of Israel, is not the “new Kahane”. I know Lieberman, like Kahane, is outspoken, openly calls for Israeli-Arab transfer, and sounds more like Middle-Eastern dictator than he does the foreign representative of a Modern-thinking Democracy. However the political motivations driving Lieberman could not be more different than the complicated ideologies that lay at the heart of Meir Kahane’s religious Zionist movement.

Lieberman is the child of the mass waives of Russian immigrants who poured out of the former Soviet Union. They unlike their Western, Oriental, and Arab Israeli hosts were used to and advocated for un-western-Putin-like politics. Lieberman has captured that public sentiment and has made a career out of responding to rhetoric with rhetoric -like a Russian politician. In his way of thinking, the Arabs living within Israeli borders need to either swear loyalty to Israel or leave. Lieberman would run a war against Hamas like Russia has led its war on Chechen rebels –unapologetic, ambitious, and ruthless.

Conversely Kahane philosophy was

“that Israel's democracy be replaced by a state modeled on Jewish religious law, and promoting the idea of a Greater Israel in which Israel would annex the West Bank and Gaza strip…[to prevent Arabs from] becoming a numerical majority in Israel, he proposed a plan allowing Arabs to voluntarily leave Israel and receive compensation for their property, and forcibly removing Arabs who refused” (Wikipedia).

For Lieberman it was simply a matter of POLITICAL fidelity on the part of the Arabs and they could stay. Not especially extreme, many nations follow this system, especially Russia. For Kahane the land was HOLY and was meant only for Jews and for it to be safe Arabs had to leave. Now THAT is extreme.

Haaretz and the Israeli-Left are so predictable. They don’t like Lieberman’s methods and belief’s, and are doing what they can to stem Lieberman’s meteoric rise to political power. This includes, but is not confined to, comparing him to Meir Kahane. But just because Lieberman is as outspoken as Kahane was does not mean that Lieberman is the new Kahane.

Lieberman is a political opportunist Kahane was an ideological politician.

Haaretz and subjective journalism at its best.

The Unifying Factor: The Hand that Chopped off the Foot

The recent UN convention was enthralled with the notion that we all must fight global warming. It is seen by many as one of the few issues where there is international consensus. This is not to say that there is equal consensus in the method of solution, or the extent of sovereign responsibility. In fact critics argue that the lack of consensus reaches deep into and partially stems from an epidemic of incoherency emerging from the scientific community. However, when it comes down to the realities of what is occurring -what some objectively minded individuals would claim are “naked facts” there is no debate. The global environment is changing (some would argue that it is not warming), no nation or scientist disputes the shrinking North Pole ice cap. At this level, there is singular international agreement. This is evident from the endless stream of head-of-states declaring their support and national initiatives to fight global warming. Russia, China, America, and Europe agree!

What then does this extraordinary providence portend? Will its potential disappear in the guise of empty words, or will nations act on the global threat? Conversely, can nations achieve their objectives by an uncoordinated response; do national borders mean anything to airborne carbon emissions? It would seem that we are either doomed to failure (whatever that may be) or have a chance of success, depending on international consensus leading to absolute international cooperation. International regulations, significant investment, and even technology sharing, are all required for this to work. It is highly questionable as to whether an institution as polarized as the UN can succeed in such an important sphere when it often does not in regards to less important matters. At the very least this is a threat that no nation is immune from, and potentially poses a danger that is catastrophic to all nations.

It is a strong argument for globalization. Indeed one can expect that if the global changes continue at their present course the international community will be forced to think in more global terms. How this will affect the move to more global perspectives is left to the imagination; however we should not forget that the current economic downturn reflects real global integration. That is, globalization is a modern evolution just as global warming is seen by many scientists as a natural occurrence, one that is inevitable. Thus the question itself evolves from the relationship between calls for globalization and climate change, to whether the global community will accept the inevitable.

Is the split in America between those who believe in divine destiny and the objective, and those who are skeptical and accept subjectivity, reflected in their positions on global warming? Can it be that those who desire to control their destiny refuse the possibility that they are not the cause of global warming? This question may give credence to the argument that global warming is a natural trend, and offer real insight into the subtle undercurrent that is once again evident in American politics.

What if the unity that is required in the face of global warming is nature telling us unify or die. Perhaps global warming in not real but the need to recognize that we are one body is. After all who ever heard of a hand chopping off a foot?