A couple of months ago, Israel’s controversial, very right-wing foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, was in London for talks with the British government as part of a four-nation European trip. It was his first visit abroad as foreign minister and it would have been interesting to have been a fly on the wall when he met British Foreign Secretary David Miliband, if only to have seen the body language. All the reports point to a cold get-together. Miliband who, only a couple of days earlier in Washington, had been effusive in his praise of President Barack Obama’s Middle East peace plans, calling them a once-in-a-generation opportunity to end the intractable Palestinian-Israeli conflict, is said to have been unhappy at having to meet Lieberman, who had virtually invited himself to London. The fact that there was almost no press coverage of the visit certainly implies that. It was the same during his visits to Paris, Rome and Berlin. No photo calls, no joint press conferences. None of the foreign ministers wanted to be seen near Lieberman. We cannot blame them.

It seems moreover, that he will not be going back to France in a hurry. The French do not want him back. The Israeli media are full of reports that when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in Paris last week for talks, President Nicolas Sarkozy advised him to get rid of Lieberman and replace him with former foreign minister and now opposition leader Tzipi Livni. Sarkozy allegedly went so far as to say that he would never meet Lieberman. To Netanyahu’s comment that in private, Lieberman is very nice and very different, Sarkozy’s response that right-wing French leader Jean-Marie Le Pen was also quite charming in private was a fair comment, and the fact that he then felt constrained to withdraw the comparison when Netanyahu protested does not undermine the fundamental truth of what he said. The two are very similar; both are neo-fascists. There is a history of vile politicians being “nice” in private. Hitler was said to be charming in private. Saddam Hussein may have been nice in private as well, although given that he was prone to murdering members of his own family, that may be taking the comparison too far.

Needless to say, Lieberman’s supporters are strutting around with unconvincing moral indignation, calling this an unacceptable intrusion into Israel’s internal affairs. That is rich coming from a state that is never backward in commenting on foreign politicians’ merits and their suitability for the jobs they hold; their record of openly interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, not least the US, is monumental. In any event, Sarkozy’s reported comments were in private and it is perfectly normal for international figures to discuss such matters privately. It would be strange if they did not.

However, while we fully understand Sarkozy’s distaste, we do not agree with him. We do not think that Netanyahu should get rid of his odious foreign minister. Lieberman is the real, ugly malevolent face of an ugly and malevolent government. The more the rest of the world sees him, the more it will be brought face to face with that fact. It may well be uncomfortable for Sarkozy and others who have to meet such repellent characters, but to suggest that an oppressive and arrogant regime should conduct its dealings with the rest of the world through a more politically acceptable mouthpiece sounds like a call to hypocrisy.