Recently, Israeli Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has been touring four Latin American countries: Brazil, Argentina, Peru and Colombia. He traveled there together with a retinue of Israeli businessmen. The claimed aim was to strength commercial ties with the region and to counterbalance the increasing presence by Iran in some countries.
According to Andres Oppenheimer, the true reason for the tour is Netanyahu’s need to give some stage role to his uncomfortable partner while sensible matters are dealed by himself (with USA) or by President Peres (with the Arabs).
Lieberman is the representative in the government coalition of the extremist fringe of Israel society, the colonialist settlers and the immigrants from the former USSR, some of them of a dubious (but convenient) Jewish identity, some linked to the mafia underworld. Lieberman’s fast enrichment has been scrutinized by the Police and now it seems to be on the verge of indictment.
These are no news for those already convinced of the colonialist character of Zionism and of the role of Israel as a bridgehead against the Arab peoples (the Palestinians in the first place). For those of us old enough to have witnessed the enormous changes occurred since 1967 is not so easy.
The Six Day War was a turning point that confronted Israelis with the neurotic consequences of become an occupation force with an increasing cynical, intolerant sectarianism. My standpoint of view is close to that written by Tom Segev at the 40th anniversary.
Before that, Zionist nationalism (beyond discursive nuances from left to right) sought the help of colonialist powers (be it the Turkish, British, German, USA, etc) as well as Arab nationalists did (from the British against the Turks, then from the Nazis against the British, the USSR, etc).
Now, to every person sincerely interested in stopping the endless circle of violence, let it hope the exit of Lieberman. Then, if Obama’s team of advisers succeed in isolating the extremist fringe of settlers and to draw recognized boundaries for the Palestine Autonomy (and to pull out the Israeli soldiers from surveillance upon Palestinians daily life), then this will be a first step towards a true coexistence between two people poisoned by mutual disbelief for too much time.
GLORIA MUNDI 
joeland7
August 5, 2009
Lieberman need to return to the old USSR. He lives in the past. In fact all of the Ashkenazi Jews should return to the land of their ancestors. Than their will be peace in the Middle East.
http://joeland7.wordpress.com/2009/07/25/obama-vs-netanyahu-the-big-showdown-obama-addresses-dr-henry-gates-controversy-israel-in-bible-prophecy/
bobrow
August 5, 2009
I wonder how did you find my way when I was still in the process of editing the post?
I visited your blog and we can agree about Israel warmonger behaving. But I tried to stress the point that there was an Arab (then Palestinian) nationalist agenda before and parallel to the Zionist presence there.
I don’t believe in any Higher incidence in History out of men themselves (btw, I think you repeated Pascal’s bet on God’s existence in your “About” page). What men did they are able to undo. I worked on behalf of the Peace with the two people many years ago and am confident in the intelligent individuals on both sides.
As for your proposed transfer of the Ashkenazis back to Europe (from where they were forced to leave at the hands of Antisemitism) you may realize this is as unrealistic as the return of European (and Asian and African) American people back to their original countries.
History doesn’t change by an abracadabra trick or pure act of will. It takes a lot of work, negotiations, self restrictions and a good international surveillance.
Rady
August 13, 2009
What’s interesting are both your posts – about the China v. US race for Latin America and Israel’s visit to LA. A similar dynamic is playing out in Africa. I suspect the US is stretched too thin and – since China holds our debt – China will beat the US to land and resources in LA and in Africa.
What’s heartening to see, tho, is the indigenous people resisting – from the Amazonian Indians in Peru to the Hondurans. Have a great piece up on Peru over at COTO Report: Victory in the Amazon: http://bit.ly/2op1Gs.
Global elites have underestimated the power of resistance by ordinary people. They seem to forget how damn many of us there are!
bobrow
August 13, 2009
Rady, you’re right about changes in Latin American as peoples are reassessing their autonomy (I noticed your post) as well as China advances in Africa (I illustrated an article on that some two years ago) and L.A.
But, don’t forget China is entering Capitalism with all its contradictions. They have their own uprisings (Sinkiang) and WTO restrictions to play by the rules (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/business/global/13trade.html?th&emc=th)
I tend to think like historian Paul Kennedy: USA is mving to a status of “primus inter pares” but no more the only Superpower, free of accountability duties (https://bobrow.wordpress.com/2009/04/20/washington-at-a-slower-pace/) it was until now.
owlminerva
August 28, 2009
Hi Bobrow,
I love your drawings. And I will very much enjoy browsing through your archives. I like nuanced analysis. I agree that when it comes to this conflict, certain steps have to be taken for both sides to calm down before anything further can be done. What I wonder about though, and I have come accross this more often, I see that you and Segev belief that 1967 was a crucial point, that what happened after 67 was somehow fundamental different from what happened before it. Segev believes that 67 presents a military victory but not a political one. I am not really understanding that. What is different from the colonial mentality of the original settlers and the current ones that are making trouble in West bank and East Jeruzalem? As far as I can see, people like you will say that in 67 enough land had been occupied, that was is left should be for Palestine, while the settlers simply continue in the old tradition. I am sure I am missing something? What is the difference in philosophy before and after 67? I am not really trying to create an argument. I just want to understand how you see this.
Bob Row
September 2, 2009
Owlminerva: I can understand if your view of the Zionist enterprise is one of colonization and displacement of the original inhabitants from the start until today. But they didn’t see themselves that way, even if you can call it a way of self-deception.
Until 1948 most Zionist settlements occupied the lowlands scarcely populated (roughly the Peel commission of 1937 scheme). After the Independence (the Nakba for the Palestinians) the remaining Arab population got its Israeli citizenship (after a while). Even with some restrictions and hostility from the Jewish majority, their status was by no means close to that of South Africa in the apartheid times: I was friend with some of them at the Hebrew U. of Jerusalem in 1978. They were free to study, to eat and to mix with anybody (a cousin of mine dated their Association’s chairman -who was a great womanizer, btw).
For the people in the Occupied Territories after 1967 was altogether different: they have to ask for a permission to enter Israel to work for a limited time and subject to detention after that. For a short time it was an opportunity to improve their income but, in due time, repression increased with each fedayin’s incursion.
Above all, the new religious colonization movement got crazy with the frenzy for recapture any biblical place, even if located amid densely populated areas. This way, Israeli Army turned to become a true occupation, brutal force and made day by day life insufferable for most of the Palestinians. Israelis changed from self-deception into cynicism. If I was a Psychologist I’d say the majority went to be psychotic while the pacifist minority is just neurotic. perhaps in the inverse proportion it was before the 1967 war. This was one of the reasons I decided to abandon a promising career in the Israeli media and chose to return to obscurity in my country (there are too many good caricaturists here).
Rady
September 2, 2009
that’s a helpful summary, Bob – thanks. And, how admirable you walked away from fame and fortune in a nation committing such atrocities.
Bob Row
September 2, 2009
Thanks, Rady. But there were family and “another kind” of reasons in Buenos Aires to take that decision too. Hey! do my face looks something close to “heroic”? ha, ha!!