Outgoing Finance Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Monday excoriated Prime Minister-designate Binaynaim Netanyahu, claiming that “he will go down in history as the one who led Israel to the third Churban Beit Hamikdash.”
Speaking at a party meeting, Lieberman slammed the coalition agreements Netanyahu is signing with his political partners, saying that he is “sacrificing the State of Israel to extricate himself from his personal legal struggles.”
Lieberman also claimed that Netanyahu is embarking on a security gamble that will lead Israel to conflict with the world and “then he’ll need to call me or Gantz to join him in order to save himself from Ben-Gvir and Smotrich.”
However, no need to worry – Lieberman vowed that he himself won’t enter a Netanyahu government and he hopes that Gantz won’t be tempted by the move either.
(YWN Israel Desk – Jerusalem)
10 Responses
To the headline writer: His first name is Avigdor, not Rasha.
You can’t have a third churban until you first have a third binyan.
His name is RASHA__if he continues to keep his mouth close to his lower back side then he will be living in Ukraine….sorry….this kind of politics isn’t Israel and it isn’t Jewish by Design but evil by transport….May this man lose all his connections to any element of print…take his privileges away….
Gadolhadorah, what?s the point of standing up for a rasha merusha like this humanoid chazir? Can you explain?
Gadolhadorah: to your comment:Your amarazes is bigger the then the one from Rascha Liebermann.
You should change your name to Gadol haamaratzes
He is cute!
@gadolhadorahx sad that your always anti trump and not a self hater
Oh I like this let?s keep on supporting Netanyahu until the third Beit Hamikdash is built and then we can get rid of him if we need. I?m not going to stop supporting before that I at least want to see the third Beit Hamikdash built.
> Gadolhadorah
The commenters against your post are correct (and so is Milhouse for that matter). Using Lieberman’s own way of arguing matters, Lieberman’s “third Beit Hamikdash” remark implicitly means that there is a “third Beit Hamikdash”, which can only mean he is implicitly calling the Mosque of Omar the “third Beit Hamikdash”. How is such a thing NOT (at the very least) a “rasha”? And if you want to complain that my lin eof reasoning is absurd, I point out again that I am merely using Lieberman’s own type of (meaningless) argument that Lieberman himself uses to when he trashes others.
I don’t think Lieberman is so deep as to make cheshbonot as to what constitutes the third Bet ha-Mikdash. He’s just a boorish man with a big pisk.