Thanks Neve. Succinct and relevant as always. I recall reading several articles a year or more ago warning that Avigdor Lieberman is as mad as a cut snake.

But I think you missed mentioning one other of Bibi's motives, besides "ambition" and "lust for power", in making such an insane and dangerous appointment. Bibi himself (and his wife for that matter) has a very ugly record of brutal misconduct and corruption. How could Bibi draw any line on a more overt racist and fascist?

The only silver lining in all this might be that the twin psychotic Liebermann/Netanyahu act will become so diplomatically embarrassing to the US that it'll have no choice but to finally rein in Israel's racist, apartheid excesses - about 40 years too late.

However, with the appointment of Hillary ('we'll obliterate them') Clinton as Liebermann's US equivalent, I won't be holding my breath.

Yes, Leve and SJF, and of course the big worry is that Obama's Sharing the Blame tendencies so much needed these days, could be blocked simply through the Clintons not understanding the difference between friendships and political tactics.

Indeed, Patrick Tyler talks about this in his World of Trouble, Martin Woolcott coupling the Clintonian problem with Reckless Initiatives.

Certainly hope Obama will be statesmanlike over the above, which means that dealing with Netanyahu right now, old friendhips must not count.

But Obama's a joke, only recently becoming more obviously so. His ego is tremendous. While we cannot expect any politicians to be exactly humble, Obama's self-obsession is what makes him so easy to manipulate by the loudest and most cashed-up oligarchs.

The Clintons have at least got spine, whatever else their shortcomings.

Mil Observer, you are on the wrong tack, mate, because it is the spine of historical reasoning we are on about here.

The Clintons with their foolish wrong-time friendliness have not only been the cause of Bill Clinton letting Netanyahu have too much head years ago, but Hillary has been on a similar stance just lately.

It is Middle East historical outcomes we are on about here, my friend, and thus we would like you to explain your preference?