Talk:Avigdor Lieberman

POV discussion

This section (Best known in Israel for ...) is clearly POV - comments, anybody? The preceding unsigned comment was originally added by Danielcohn.

Please be more specific. Quote the POV part exactly, if you will. --Chodorkovskiy 06:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that the article that quoted someone saying that Lieberman is a racist should not be there since this position is same as Hamas and many other Arabs vis a vis the Jews. No one says that they are racists so samthing should be done with Lieberman.

He has recently generated harsh reactions also by demanding the execution of Arab MKs [1] who meet with Hamas officials.

He demanded Arab MKs to be tried, not executed as stated in the article.

I strongly object to the first paragraph as written (the one which describes Lieberman's "transfer" plan for Israeli Arabs) as it contains no balancing statement from the many Israeli political leaders who object to Lieberman's plan. I have written a 2nd paragraph which provides some of that balance. If anyone tinkers with my 2nd paragraph I will want to know why. If it is changed or removed I will register a POV dispute about this article.

I removed the passage "and transfer their sovereignty to a future Palestinian state" because there is no concrete indication that this will ever happen beyond rhetoric. Furthermore, Liberman has no desire to help create a Palestinian state, from here http://www.asiantribune.com/index.php?q=node/2811 There is also little mention of his constituency, and no mention of his critics often calling him a "fascist". Kareem

Karim, you are mistaken - Lieberman accepts the inevitability of some sort of Palestinian state (as opposed to Likud party, which for some reason is considered more to the left then Yisrael Beitenu), and his plan - call it rhetoric if you will - advocates exactly what you have removed. As for people calling him names, there is not a single polician on left or right that has been spared such slurs as "Nazi" or "fascist", and it should never be a part of a neutral article. Eliyyahu 23:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Eliyyahu, you bring up two points. With the issue of the Palestinian state, I refer you to his recent statement of which I posted the link above. Surely one who describes destroying the infrastructure of a territory in such detail has no interest in building a state, beyond lip service. And this is not the first time he makes sucj statements. Secondly, there is a difference between calling someone a Fascist and a Nazi. Calling an Israeli politician a Nazi would be a slur, yes, although fascism is a political ideology that befits Liberman's thinking. And while you may be right that no politician has been spared "slurs", fascism is quite a different thing. In fact, it is a very real concern that some Western democracies are creeping into that ideology. I refer you to Wikipedia's definition of Fascism. --Kareem najjar 23:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Kareem, the Yisrael Beitenu website clearly states their program (http://www.beytenu.org.il/content.asp?NID=2&CID=9) - unfortunately available only in Hebrew and Russian, but if I can translate it if you like. It states that there will be a permanent border with the Palestinians based on whether the majority of population is Arab or Jewish in a given area. According to the programme, Arab towns transfered to Israel by Jordan in 1949 will be given up by Israel and become part of a future Palestinian state in exchange for retaining Jewish settlement blocs. Lieberman is the author of this plan, and whether he changed his views or not, this is still his party's platform and therefore should be properly reflected in our website description.

The wikipedia definition of "fascism" is not academically reliable. These words have lost their meaning, with everyone left and right calling each other names (cf. Islamofascism). The Oxford English Dictionary defines "fascism" as "the totalitarian principles and organisation of the extreme right-wing in Italy". It also notes that the loose use in the sense of "any system of extreme right-wing or authoritarian views" is considered unacceptable by some people. Therefore, even if Lieberman was either authoritarian or extreme right-wing, it would have been questionable to call him a fascist, but since his position on a Palestinian state is to the left of the Likud or the National Union (Yihud Le'umi), he is best identified as a right-wing secular Zionist.Eliyyahu 05:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting points, however: whether or not the party platform states that there should be a future Palestinian state, the article is about Avigdor Liberman, not the Yisrael Beitenu party platform. Given your point, it seems imperative that a distinction should be made between what he states and what his party's platform is. Again, I refer you to the links I had mentioned earlier. In addition, as I mentioned before, it is highly unlikely that a Palestinian state will be formed anytime in the future. If the sentence should come back, it should perhaps come back as "future theoretical Palestinian state". but since the facts on the ground are what they are, it does not make sense to have it in there. Perhaps the term "fascism" has lost its meaning in a general sense, yet it still is a political ideology that is associated with certain parties or movements. your example of Islamofascism is not a good one in my opinion, because as the link you provided states, it is a neologism and not necessarily a political ideology per se. It is more of a bigoted, almost nonsensical statement in line with calling someone a Nazi. --Kareem najjar 22:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Kareem, I'm sorry, but the article link you provided is rather biased and provides only fragmentary, and, more importantly, outdated quotes from Lieberman, whose position before 2004 was more hard-line than it is now. The sentence in question is about his population exchange proposal, not other statements, and his plan is spelt out in detail on the Yisra'el Beitenu website. I don't know if in his heart he believes that an independent Palestinian state will be formed, but the idea of ceding Arab towns to some sort of entity that is not part of the State of Israel implies just that, and is closer to the Olmert "convergence" plan than positions of Effi Eitam, Benny Elon or Baruch Marzel who believe in one, Jewish state west of Jordan.

I agree that Islamo-fascism is a bigoted term, although no more nonsensical than calling Lieberman one. He is a nationalist and a Zionist, but not a xenophobe; otherwise, how would you explain his friendly relationship with the Druze, and his party goal to create more housing for them?

To round up the discussion, I suggest we say something like "transfer their sovereignty to the Palestinian Authority", which may become an independent state. Eliyyahu 01:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion sounds like a fair compromise, thank you. However, I do feel that something has to be said about 'fascist-ic' tendencies, of which there is ample evidence. But I will leave it alone for now, and hope that someone else could contribute. Thanks for your time.--Kareem najjar 02:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Fascistic tendencies are complete OR. Find a source and you can cram the article full of such claims. --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 11:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC) --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 11:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's one from a few days ago: "Israeli Arab leader calls Yisrael Beiteinu 'fascist party'". El_C 14:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Lieberman vs. Liberman

In view of the fact that Lieberman has become the standart spelling of his name in the anglo press, I suggest that the article be renamed "Avigdor Lieberman" and Liberman would be redirected to it. Any objections? Eliyyahu 16:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

• Can anyone explain the thinking behind spelling his name "Liberman" rather than the way I've seen it in the Israeli & world media, "Lieberman?" I don't believe I've seen it spelled "Liberman" anywhere other than here. Richard 22:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. I think official translators opted for the spelling to avoid confusion with someone whose name, phonetically, sounds like Lie-berman. El_C 10:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I prefer going with the Knesset's spelling. El_C 16:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reason for the phonetic spelling "Liberman" is that neither Hebrew or Russian use the Latin alphabet, and therefore the long vower "ee" is not reflected in their respective spelling. Of course, Lieberman is a German/Yiddish Ashkenazic surname and etymologically Lieberman or even Liebermann is the correct spelling. In my view, the article heading should reflect the prevalent spelling, while within it we can add variant spellings for clarification purposes. Eliyyahu 19:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Авигдор Либерман (Abīgdoŭr Līberman, Avigdor Liběrman). See Ynet Encyclopedia Why not seek clarification from aliberman@knesset.gov.il? El_C 20:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Che Guevara, a simple Google search yields 321,000 hits for "Avigdor Lieberman", but only 27,500 for "Avigdor Liberman". That's more than 10:1. Still not convinced? Eliyyahu 20:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please restrict yourself to designated usernames. In answer to your question, I don't care if it's 100:1, I care about official usage and accuracy, and phonetic comprehensibility. El_C 23:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The AE pronunciation of Lieberman has the first syllable like Robert E. Lee, I'mnot sure that phonetic comprehensibility is an issue here; and most of the links use Lieberman. So does the BBC. Septentrionalis 23:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

What is so special about the BBC? (who uses both); their translations are of an unofficial nature. El_C 23:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

An eminent news source that speaks BE, so it's not just AE. Septentrionalis 13:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Lie is phoentically clear to native speakers. But that is besides the point. What is written on his passport, however, is an important indicator. That Knesset page / email address is as verifiable we get to what the correct English spelling for his name is (Li). As well, while the Party's website English page is down (not sure if it was ever up), as for pictures of him in the Hebrew and Russian pages, I've only seen the Li in the file name. Which is why I suggested asking aliberman@knesset.gov.il. El_C 04:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, both spellings will be included in the article, but the Wikipedia policy is to use the most widespread spelling for article headings (e.g. Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, Che Guevara etc) - it really doesn't matter what's written in his passport: Yasser Arafat's real name was Yasser al-Qudwa, but I don't see any entries under that name. Eliyyahu 05:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

YB website lists him as Avigdor Lieberman. Since it is "his" party, I would assume that is the spelling he prefers. With all due respect to the Knesset, translit. on their website could be a whim of some translator, subcontractor or webmaster. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Link? El_C 11:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Not policy but guideline, in this case involving a subtle difference (1 letter). El_C 11:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, that's WP:NAME, which is policy. Septentrionalis 13:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yisrael Beytenu website [1] lists him as Lieberman. The site is currently down, but you can read the cached version on Google. Eliyyahu 17:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected, on all fronts. El_C 17:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I propperly moved the page; someone WP:CPMV'd it. El_C 18:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and allegations of anti-Arabism

I've previously added {{fact}} beside the unsourced statement that Lieberman's population exchange proposal was a reason for the requested invistigation by Tibi. Both the Ynet and Guardian articles used as references have no mention of this at all. The only reason mentioned in both articles is Lieberman's remarks of the Arab MKs. Actually, the Ynet news article [2] says "Lieberman said that the fate of the collaborators in the Knesset should be same as the fate of the Nazi collaborators. Immediately after these words, Tibi approached Attorney General Mazuz and demanded that a criminal investigation be initiated". Ynet and the Guardian are reliable sources. On the contrary is the israelinsider which is an online news magazine! Besides, the article cited by israelinsider [3] talks about the separation suggested by Lieberman but does not mention at all that this was a reason for the investtigation. I've also added {{fact}} besides " who comes from the town of Tayibe, which Lieberman wants transferred to the Palestinian Authority " which is unverifiable, unsourced and its addition in such a way to imply that it was the reason behind Tibi's demand of investigation constitutes Original rearch. The template {{fact}} was removed with no explanation. I'm removing both now.--Wedian 18:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you are correct that Ahmed Tibi went to State Prosecutor's office in connection with Lieberman's statements against Arab MKs that met with with the Hamas (Tibi being one of them) and not in connection with his Population Exchange Plan, but it is definitely relevant information for any reader that Tibi lives in Tayibe [4], because under Lieberman's proposal he would become Palestinian and lose his job in the Knesset. Eliyyahu 05:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this kind of information belongs to Ahmed Tibi article not to Liebermann's article unless reputable sources -and not wikipedians- have directly linked or attributed Tibi's accusations to him being from the Tayibe town which would be transfered in the population exchange plan. If you take a look at WP:OR you 'll find that an edit counts as origoinal research if It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position. Ahmed Tibi is from Tayibe is a fact. He accused Lieberman of being a racist and anti-arabist is another fact. If you put up these two facts in such a way to suggest that the first is the reason behind the second just as you've said above "Ahmed Tibi accused Lieberman of anti-arabism but he is from Tayibe, & according to Lieberman's proposal he would become palestininan and lose his job at the knesset" then, this is purely an Original Research and doesn't belong to wikipedia.--Wedian 22:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

All right, Wedian, I see your point. Although this is not original research, I cannot currently find a source explaining that Tibi's remarks are motivated by the fact that Lieberman's proposal would affect him directly. Shokran. Eliyyahu 01:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the Triangle?

This would be easier for non-Israelis to follow if it said where the "Triangle" is; the Wadi 'Ara link is red. Septentrionalis 03:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Triangle and other Arab regions

In a 2004 speech Lieberman suggested that 90% of Israel's Arabs would have their citizenships annulled. At most 40% of Israel's Arabs live in the Triangle however. Search for "90%" and "Avigdor Lieberman" on Google and there are plenty of references to that speech. Handing over the Triangle is nothing controversial and has been suggested by Shimon Peres and others.

This means Lieberman wants to exclude the Arabs of the Negev and Galilee from Israel as well. Borders as mentioned above by someone else should according to the party be drawn according to whether the majority in a given area is Jewish or Muslim. This includes present-day Israel.

The English-language website of Yisrael Beytenu mentions Wadi Ara as an EXAMPLE of Arab areas that should be turned over to the Palestinian Authority.

The Wadi Area is only a small part of the Triangle. The Triangle is a term which was originally used under the British mandate. It included the West Bank north of Ramallah. The term Triangle now refers to a number of Arab Israeli towns that border the West Bank. Actually it looks much more like a line than anything else, certainly not a triangle. The term "Triangle" is a misnomer that should be avoided.

Again, Wadi Ara is only a small part of the "Triangle".

There is no evidence from any reliable sources that Lieberman suggests turning areas other than the Triangle to the PA in exchange for annexation of settlement blocs. There is absolutely no evidence that he support giving up parts of Galilee or Negev. In fact, many Galilee Druze support him and he has pledged to create more housing for them. The actual plan can be read on Hebrew, Russian or English version of the party website. For the time being, you are extrapolating information, and it is pure OR. Eliyyahu 01:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

90% is 90%. Haaretz is a pretty reliable source. The party platform says borders should be drawn according to whether Jews or Arabs constitute the majority in any given region. There are many reliable references to the 90% speech (see above). The Yisrael Beiteinu web site is not very specific, it only states the general principle. By the way, the main Druze region is close to the Lebanon border (not in southern or central Galilee) and as Israeli patriots Lieberman obviously want the Druze to be part of Israel. This has been stated by him many times. This applies also to some other "patriotic" minority villages. Note also that he wants to keep half of the West Bank not only settlement blocs. This is the "population exchange". Palestine incorporates Israeli Arabs, Israel incorporates Jewish settlers. Perhaps it is time that we ask the party itself so as to find out. Again the speech is widely quoted. Nowhere does the party claim that the handover should be LIMITED to the so called Triangle. The term "Triangle" is a misnomer that was relevant in the mandatory period when the Triangle extended all the way to Ramallah.

The web site EXEMPLIFIES when mentioning the Triangle and Um El Fahem: "Trading Spaces Moving the Border Between Us, Not Among Us. The responsibility for primarily Arab areas such as Umm Al-Fahm and the “triangle” will be transferred to the Palestinian Authority. In parallel, Israel will officially annex Jewish areas in Judea and Samaria. Israel is our home; Palestine is theirs."

None of the other mentioned political parties favor forced population transfer.

I suggest you read the Hebrew version of the party website (if you read Hebrew)[5]. It explicitly states that (1) the area of Wadi 'Ara and the Triangle should come under Palestinian sovereignty. (2) Jewish settlements blocs close to the former Israel-Jordan ceasefire line will be annexed (Maale Adummim, Ariel, Gush Etzion) (3) 170,000 Arabs in the Metropolitan area of Jerusalem will be included in the Palestinian Authority (3) All Israeli citizens will be required to pledge allegiance to the country, its anthem and its flag, or have their citizenship revoked. In that case, they still may be able to qualify for permanent residency without citizenship. (This can also affect Arab Israelis in other areas). To my own surprise, the website also states that all the territorial exchanges will be part of a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians and will require approval of the UN and the international community.

Make of it what you will, but there is not a word about Negev or the Galilee in the program. Eliyyahu 06:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The mention of the Triangle is for legal reasons, because Israel originally acquired the area through territorial exchange. (They traded a Jewish area north of the Dead Sea.) The reference is to "Jewish areas" not settlement blocs. (BTW there are more Jewish settlement blocs than the 3 biggest.) There are only 3 Arab regions in Israel, the Triangle, southern and central Galilee and northern Negev. The 90% includes all the 3 regions. (10% of Israel's ethnic Arabs live outside the 3 regions, mainly in Jewish cities. I checked successive censa.) The Triangle is only one region and the program refers to regions in plural. Whatever one thinks of Lieberman's policies, he is terribly misunderstood. My only concern is to set the record straight as I deplore the way he is misunderstood by the Israeli left and the media, something which I personally think is a shame. If you live in Israel, please do take the opportunity to call up the party and verify. All the best.

WikiProject Palestine

How is this article in the scope of WikiProject Palestine? Granted, I don't know of any restrictions about what WikiProjects can include in their scope, but this is nowhere near the project's scope, which says: The project covers all articles about Palestine geography, culture, history, politics, sports, and modern events.

Lieberman has about as much to do with Palestine as someone like Ibrahim al-Makadmeh has to do with Israel. Not he, and not even Palestinian leaders directly related to Israel like Ismail Haniya, Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, are included in the scope of WikiProject Israel.

What is the reason for this inclusion? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As a follow-up to the above, I just noticed that List of massacres committed during the 1948 Arab-Israeli war was ranked as 'high' on the WikiProject Palestine importance scale, while Turmus Ayya, a fairly well-known Palestinian town, was ranked 'low'. Does anyone else get a feeling that the project is mostly political in nature? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I tagged this with AWB but having looked at it again it does fall within the scope of WikiProject Palestine. I'm surprised that articles on the people you mention have not been incorporated into WikiProject Israel. Could you make sense of modern Israeli history without discussing them? --Ian Pitchford 19:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that Arafat, Abbas and Haniya should be included in WP:Israel, simply because you can't include everyone who seriously influences the country into the WikiProject. I mean, imagine including George W. Bush or Condoleezza Rice into about 50 individual country WikiProjects. Or Kissinger, or any other such person. Yes, Lieberman is indirectly (at least for now) related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which is related to Palestine; but mostly he is related to Israel, its politics, etc. Putting him in WikiProject Palestine is undue weight - even if you consider the Lieberman plan to be within the scope of this project, it shouldn't cover even a quarter of the article on Lieberman, who has many other political plans, which will probably not be implemented. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree; these inclusions seem political in nature. Should people be included in the Wikiprojects of every single country they might have influenced in some way? Is Wikiproject Palestine simply a duplicate of Wikiproject Israel? If so, it shouldn't exist. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the "racism" section and it looks like an assortment of random quotes and misquotes referenced also to The Independent?! and a Gideon Levy remark about an article he'd seen?!. Sure, there's room for "criticism of anti-arab behavior/commentary", but currently the section reeks of ridiculous POV pushing in what looks like a sad attempt to replace Ariel Sharon with a new subject for hate iconography. I'm not a huge fan of Liberman, but this should be fixed. p.s. Ynhockey, I hope I answered your question about the reason for this inclusion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, the reason for changes is due to misuse of sources and POV. If you have reason to believe the sources are worthy of inclusion, please state proper reasoning, and proper text. Wiki-articles are not meant to nitpick at unimportant quotes and you need to establish relevence and notability - with reliable sourcing. Thank you. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)