Peres reconsidering running for Knesset
by Gil Hoffman
The Jerusalem Post
December 24, 2005
Former prime minister Shimon Peres is considering running for Knesset with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Kadima party.
"I cannot remain without a party and outside the Knesset," Peres said. "I haven't decided yet what I will do, but I am leaning toward being on the list and in the next Knesset."
Following his loss to Labor chairman Amir Peretz in last month's Labor primary, Peres announced that he supported Sharon's re-election. Sharon promised Peres a senior portfolio if he wins the March 28 election, but until the interview, Peres was not expected to seek a seat in the Knesset, where he has served since 1959.
However, Peres informed Sharon that he was considering running for Knesset when the two men met on Sunday and Sharon replied that he was welcome on the Kadima list. Shortly after the conversation, Sharon suffered his mild stroke and went to the hospital.
Channel 10's Dan Margalit reported on Friday night that Sharon's stroke convinced Peres that he could be prime minister again if he becomes Sharon's second in command. Peres's spokesman called the report "nonsense."
The spokesman said Peres's decision about whether to run for the Knesset would not be impacted by polls published recently that indicated that Peres was the public's top choice to serve as Sharon's number two in Kadima.
A source close to Sharon said that the second slot on the Kadima list would go to either Vice Prime Minister Ehud Olmert or Justice Minister Tzipi Livni.
"Peres will be in a high place on the list but I don't think he will be in the top five," the source said.
Shimon Peres
An obstacle to peace
Sunday, December 25, 2005
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
His racist brother's racist keeper
Peres' brother slams Peretz's 'militias'
Gigi Peres: North African militias took over Labor.
Party members blast vice premier;
Peres associate: He won't be staying in Labor.
by Attila Somfalvi
Yediot Ahronot
November 28, 2005
Gigi on the attack: Vice Premier Shimon Peres' brother, Gigi, blasted the Labor party in an interview with Army Radio on Monday, charging that Labor Chairman Amir Peretz "recruited militias that infiltrated the party and took over."
"Like General Franco, he recruited militias from North Africa," Gigi Peres.
"It's like crabs at sea that go into shells - you don't know if it's a snail or a crab," Gigi said referring to the new Labor leader, charging that at first Peretz approached Peres and asked that they join forces against "fascist" former Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
The scathing attack comes amid increasing signs that the longtime Labor member is on his way out of the party.
Responding to the comments, Labor's Ophir Pines said "we are talking about remarks that smell of racism and have no place in the political system in general, and in the Labor party in particular."
Pines called on Shimon Peres, "who for many years acted to open up the Labor party to numerous, diverse publics," to strongly condemn his brother's words.
As far as the senior Labor members are concerned, Peres' departure from the party is already a done deal. Even before the veteran politician announced he is quitting, some of his colleagues are lashing out at him.
"He's been getting a guaranteed a spot on the party's list without contending for the last 20 years," a source at Labor told Ynet on Monday. "This tradition should be over and done with. The position of party president he was offered is respectable enough. If he wants to go - let him go, we don't need any favors from him."
Labor members lashed at Peres not only for his demand for a guaranteed spot in the Knesset (a demand which Peres and his associates deny was ever made), but also for what they say is his failure to contribute to recent peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
"In the 10 months Peres held a position in the government, he failed to promote even one subject related to the Palestinians. Therefore, the claim that his participation in peace talks is essential is irrelevant," a high ranking party member said.
"Peretz was smart not to make any promises to Peres," another member told Ynet. "Guaranteeing him a spot now will leave him in this position until he is 86 years-old. Does this make any sense?" he asked.
'Peres not coming back to Labor'
Meanwhile, other sources at the party said they were astounded by Peretz's refusal to secure a spot for Peres in the next Knesset, and claimed the old leader should have been granted a respectable spot on the list in order to persuade him to stay in the party and not "defect'" to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's new faction, Kadima.
Meanwhile, Peres associate Shmulik Rifman claimed the vice premier is angry with Labor Chairman Peretz and the party's Director General, Knesset Member Eitan Cabel.
"I know what he's been through in the last few weeks. I know what he had to face after his defeat in the party primaries. After speaking with him on Monday I can say one thing for certain: He is not coming back to this party," Rifman said.
Rifman has himself already made the move from Labor to Sharon's Kadima party last week.
In the meantime, Peres is attending an international convention in Barcelona, where he is scheduled to attend a soccer match between the local all-star team and an Israeli-Palestinian team.
Peres is expected to announce his decision on his future moves after returning from Barcelona.
Ronny Sofer contributed to the story
Gigi Peres: North African militias took over Labor.
Party members blast vice premier;
Peres associate: He won't be staying in Labor.
by Attila Somfalvi
Yediot Ahronot
November 28, 2005
Gigi on the attack: Vice Premier Shimon Peres' brother, Gigi, blasted the Labor party in an interview with Army Radio on Monday, charging that Labor Chairman Amir Peretz "recruited militias that infiltrated the party and took over."
"Like General Franco, he recruited militias from North Africa," Gigi Peres.
"It's like crabs at sea that go into shells - you don't know if it's a snail or a crab," Gigi said referring to the new Labor leader, charging that at first Peretz approached Peres and asked that they join forces against "fascist" former Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
The scathing attack comes amid increasing signs that the longtime Labor member is on his way out of the party.
Responding to the comments, Labor's Ophir Pines said "we are talking about remarks that smell of racism and have no place in the political system in general, and in the Labor party in particular."
Pines called on Shimon Peres, "who for many years acted to open up the Labor party to numerous, diverse publics," to strongly condemn his brother's words.
As far as the senior Labor members are concerned, Peres' departure from the party is already a done deal. Even before the veteran politician announced he is quitting, some of his colleagues are lashing out at him.
"He's been getting a guaranteed a spot on the party's list without contending for the last 20 years," a source at Labor told Ynet on Monday. "This tradition should be over and done with. The position of party president he was offered is respectable enough. If he wants to go - let him go, we don't need any favors from him."
Labor members lashed at Peres not only for his demand for a guaranteed spot in the Knesset (a demand which Peres and his associates deny was ever made), but also for what they say is his failure to contribute to recent peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
"In the 10 months Peres held a position in the government, he failed to promote even one subject related to the Palestinians. Therefore, the claim that his participation in peace talks is essential is irrelevant," a high ranking party member said.
"Peretz was smart not to make any promises to Peres," another member told Ynet. "Guaranteeing him a spot now will leave him in this position until he is 86 years-old. Does this make any sense?" he asked.
'Peres not coming back to Labor'
Meanwhile, other sources at the party said they were astounded by Peretz's refusal to secure a spot for Peres in the next Knesset, and claimed the old leader should have been granted a respectable spot on the list in order to persuade him to stay in the party and not "defect'" to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's new faction, Kadima.
Meanwhile, Peres associate Shmulik Rifman claimed the vice premier is angry with Labor Chairman Peretz and the party's Director General, Knesset Member Eitan Cabel.
"I know what he's been through in the last few weeks. I know what he had to face after his defeat in the party primaries. After speaking with him on Monday I can say one thing for certain: He is not coming back to this party," Rifman said.
Rifman has himself already made the move from Labor to Sharon's Kadima party last week.
In the meantime, Peres is attending an international convention in Barcelona, where he is scheduled to attend a soccer match between the local all-star team and an Israeli-Palestinian team.
Peres is expected to announce his decision on his future moves after returning from Barcelona.
Ronny Sofer contributed to the story
The Gasbag
Shimon Says
from the November 2005 edition of Outpost,
a publication of Americans for a Safe Israel
http://mideastoutpost.com
Israel's ludicrous former Prime Minister, ever solicitous for Arab welfare, frets on Israel Radio that if Hamas candidates are permitted on the ballot in Palestinian Legislative Council elections, "the major threat is that the Palestinians will lose or endanger the massive financial aid they have been offered." Said Peres: "I don't think the world will support any Palestinian institution that supports terror."
That this gasbag still heads Israel's Labor Party is the best single disproof of the contention that Jews are intelligent. Under Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian Authority had of course been supporting terror all along: apparently Simple Shimon never figured that out. And as for "the world" cutting off the PA, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has already announced that the U.S. has no objection to Hamas on the ballot: this administration, obsessed with "process," sees no problem with empowering terror organizations.
from the November 2005 edition of Outpost,
a publication of Americans for a Safe Israel
http://mideastoutpost.com
Israel's ludicrous former Prime Minister, ever solicitous for Arab welfare, frets on Israel Radio that if Hamas candidates are permitted on the ballot in Palestinian Legislative Council elections, "the major threat is that the Palestinians will lose or endanger the massive financial aid they have been offered." Said Peres: "I don't think the world will support any Palestinian institution that supports terror."
That this gasbag still heads Israel's Labor Party is the best single disproof of the contention that Jews are intelligent. Under Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian Authority had of course been supporting terror all along: apparently Simple Shimon never figured that out. And as for "the world" cutting off the PA, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice has already announced that the U.S. has no objection to Hamas on the ballot: this administration, obsessed with "process," sees no problem with empowering terror organizations.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Peres's Oslo chickens come home to roost
Sanitizing Arafat made Ahmadinejad possible
by The Perescope
On October 26, the president of the soon-to-be-nuclear-armed Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while addressing a "conference" ominously called "The World Without Zionism," promised that the Palestinians would eventually "wipe Israel off the map."
No need to worry. Ahmadinejad was quickly condemned by Shimon Peres. "It is inconceivable that the head of a nation that is a member at the UN would call for genocide," our Vice Prime Minister declared. "His call stands against the UN charter and constitutes a crime against humanity."
Ahmadinejad must be shaking in his boots.
This is, after all, the same Shimon Peres who cavalierly brushed aside Yasser Arafat's oft-repeated genocidal vows to wipe Israel off the map when he recognized Arafat as a negotiating partner at Oslo in 1993.
"Peace for us means the destruction of Israel," Arafat once stated in a typical moment of candor. "We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations."
Or this quote, from an interview with Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci: "The end of Israel is the goal of our struggle, and it allows for neither compromise nor mediation. We don't want peace. We want war, victory. Peace for us means the destruction of Israel and nothing else."
At Oslo, Peres sanitized Arafat, the godfather of international terrorism, and, in so doing, legitimized anyone and everyone else who calls for Israel's destruction. So having seen Israel capitulate to Arafat at Oslo, why should Ahmadinejad shirk from making similar Arafatesque demands for Israel's destruction today? Peres says that Iran should be suspended from the United Nations for advocating genocide, a crime against humanity. He’s right. The destruction of Israel would indeed be genocide against the Jewish people, and that ought to be considered a crime against humanity. So why did he reward Arafat at Oslo?
It is instructive that the first foreign leader who rushed to Teheran following the Ayatollah Khomeini’s establishment of an Islamic state in 1979 was none other than Yasser Arafat. This only underscores the enormity – and obscenity – of Peres’s Oslo miscalculation. Now, twelve years after Oslo, Shimon Peres's chickens have come home to roost in a soon-to-be-nuclear Iranian chicken coop.
by The Perescope
On October 26, the president of the soon-to-be-nuclear-armed Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while addressing a "conference" ominously called "The World Without Zionism," promised that the Palestinians would eventually "wipe Israel off the map."
No need to worry. Ahmadinejad was quickly condemned by Shimon Peres. "It is inconceivable that the head of a nation that is a member at the UN would call for genocide," our Vice Prime Minister declared. "His call stands against the UN charter and constitutes a crime against humanity."
Ahmadinejad must be shaking in his boots.
This is, after all, the same Shimon Peres who cavalierly brushed aside Yasser Arafat's oft-repeated genocidal vows to wipe Israel off the map when he recognized Arafat as a negotiating partner at Oslo in 1993.
"Peace for us means the destruction of Israel," Arafat once stated in a typical moment of candor. "We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations."
Or this quote, from an interview with Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci: "The end of Israel is the goal of our struggle, and it allows for neither compromise nor mediation. We don't want peace. We want war, victory. Peace for us means the destruction of Israel and nothing else."
At Oslo, Peres sanitized Arafat, the godfather of international terrorism, and, in so doing, legitimized anyone and everyone else who calls for Israel's destruction. So having seen Israel capitulate to Arafat at Oslo, why should Ahmadinejad shirk from making similar Arafatesque demands for Israel's destruction today? Peres says that Iran should be suspended from the United Nations for advocating genocide, a crime against humanity. He’s right. The destruction of Israel would indeed be genocide against the Jewish people, and that ought to be considered a crime against humanity. So why did he reward Arafat at Oslo?
It is instructive that the first foreign leader who rushed to Teheran following the Ayatollah Khomeini’s establishment of an Islamic state in 1979 was none other than Yasser Arafat. This only underscores the enormity – and obscenity – of Peres’s Oslo miscalculation. Now, twelve years after Oslo, Shimon Peres's chickens have come home to roost in a soon-to-be-nuclear Iranian chicken coop.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
The world's oldest teeny-bopper guest stars on MTV
Once again, Peres does the twist
September 27, 2005
New York (AP) [The Perescope's comments are bracketed in green] In a New York college class, the MTV camera and all eyes were on the door, awaiting the professor – a surprise.
In walked Vice Prime Minister Shimon Peres.
"I am your surprise," the 82-year-old Nobel Prize winner, cracking a smile, told the undergraduate students at New York University [one wonders whether he said the same thing to Arafat in Oslo in 1993].
The result was a taped-for-MTV discussion of the world's troubles [many of which were caused by Peres's own diplomatic mismanagement], with Peres telling the politics majors that the biggest achievement of the past century was the liberation of women [I guess that means he's finally stopped peddling his long-standing idiotic claim that his Oslo Accords were the greatest thing since he invented Swiss cheese].
The session is to air September 27 on MTV's college targeted network, mtvU, which pipes student-aimed programming onto more than 700 US campuses, as well as the cable channel's public Web site.
When questions-and-answers time came, Peres was peppered with queries about everything from how he felt when the Palestinian flag was raised over Gaza after Israeli settlers left, to whether Israelis and Palestinians could live side by side.
Stay tuned for the answers, when the class airs on MTV's year-old channel, whose other fill-in professors at various colleges have included rocker Marilyn Manson, author Tom Wolfe, rapper Nas, Arizona Sen. John McCain and singer Sting.
Peres ended with a zinger, telling students that "America is the big Satan, and Israel is the little Satan" – that is, according to the leaders of Iran, whose government Peres said is run by "a secret, sacred group of ayatollahs" he called "killers." [Peres used to call Arafat and his ilk "killers" before Oslo, too. Does that mean that Peres is now holding clandestine talks with the Iranians? Or does it mean that Peres has finally learned the lesson of his Oslo mistake -- that there can be no compromise with those who call for your eradication. Unfortunately, no one asked him to fess up.]
This hardly resembled the class advertised to students to hide the surprise – a session devoted to making "a promotional video for incoming freshmen." Still, 21-year-old Stephen Gallo was nonplussed by the highpower politician.
"It's an insider view of the Middle East," said the senior. "I didn't learn anything I didn't already know [we never learn anything new from listening to Peres babble, either, Stephen, so don't take it personally]. But he's a Nobel Prize winner, and there have been a lot worse peace prize winners, like Yasser Arafat" [and, perchance, did Peres mention who it was who made Arafat's ignominious Nobel Prize possible by sanitizing him and negotiating with him in Oslo?].
September 27, 2005
New York (AP) [The Perescope's comments are bracketed in green] In a New York college class, the MTV camera and all eyes were on the door, awaiting the professor – a surprise.
In walked Vice Prime Minister Shimon Peres.
"I am your surprise," the 82-year-old Nobel Prize winner, cracking a smile, told the undergraduate students at New York University [one wonders whether he said the same thing to Arafat in Oslo in 1993].
The result was a taped-for-MTV discussion of the world's troubles [many of which were caused by Peres's own diplomatic mismanagement], with Peres telling the politics majors that the biggest achievement of the past century was the liberation of women [I guess that means he's finally stopped peddling his long-standing idiotic claim that his Oslo Accords were the greatest thing since he invented Swiss cheese].
The session is to air September 27 on MTV's college targeted network, mtvU, which pipes student-aimed programming onto more than 700 US campuses, as well as the cable channel's public Web site.
When questions-and-answers time came, Peres was peppered with queries about everything from how he felt when the Palestinian flag was raised over Gaza after Israeli settlers left, to whether Israelis and Palestinians could live side by side.
Stay tuned for the answers, when the class airs on MTV's year-old channel, whose other fill-in professors at various colleges have included rocker Marilyn Manson, author Tom Wolfe, rapper Nas, Arizona Sen. John McCain and singer Sting.
Peres ended with a zinger, telling students that "America is the big Satan, and Israel is the little Satan" – that is, according to the leaders of Iran, whose government Peres said is run by "a secret, sacred group of ayatollahs" he called "killers." [Peres used to call Arafat and his ilk "killers" before Oslo, too. Does that mean that Peres is now holding clandestine talks with the Iranians? Or does it mean that Peres has finally learned the lesson of his Oslo mistake -- that there can be no compromise with those who call for your eradication. Unfortunately, no one asked him to fess up.]
This hardly resembled the class advertised to students to hide the surprise – a session devoted to making "a promotional video for incoming freshmen." Still, 21-year-old Stephen Gallo was nonplussed by the highpower politician.
"It's an insider view of the Middle East," said the senior. "I didn't learn anything I didn't already know [we never learn anything new from listening to Peres babble, either, Stephen, so don't take it personally]. But he's a Nobel Prize winner, and there have been a lot worse peace prize winners, like Yasser Arafat" [and, perchance, did Peres mention who it was who made Arafat's ignominious Nobel Prize possible by sanitizing him and negotiating with him in Oslo?].
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
Happy Birthday Madonna!
Peres Cultivates a Cult of Personality
August 16, 2005
by The Perescope
Guess who celebrated a birthday on August 16? Madonna did, but so did another international pop star.
In case you didn't remember the megalomaniacal gala at Tel Aviv's Mann Auditorium two years ago on that date, attended by the likes of Bill Clinton, Kofi Annan and Mikhail Gorbachev, which cost the indulgent celebrant and the hard-pressed Israeli taxpayer hundreds of thousands of shekels, you would have been reminded by an advertisement on the front page of the August 16th edition of Ha'aretz, the Hebrew daily that arrogantly proclaims itself to be the newspaper for "people who think" -- a self-flattering and overly-generous euphemism that Israeli leftists apply to themselves.
Ran Rahav, a celebrity Israeli PR guru, took out the expensive ad to wish a happy birthday to his friend Shimon Peres. Although he didn't find it necessary to level with Ha'aretz readers by admitting in the ad that he's Peres's long-time buddy, Rahav did pay for enough ink and column inches to thank Peres for his role (or, more accurately, what Peres claims to have been his role) as the father of Israel's nuclear program.
Now we're not talking here of an ad placed by Madonna's PR agent on the front page of Variety. This was an ad signed by one of Israel's leading image makers on the front page of what likes to think of itself as Israel's version of The New York Times.
When was the last time you saw a personality cult like this in a democratic country? The custom of publishing an ad on the front page of a newspaper to wish The Great Leader a happy birthday used to be something worthy of Pravda. The tradition undoubtedly continues with Kim Jung Il in the so-called Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and, for all I know, maybe even with Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. The custom of holding an expensive birthday bash broadcast on TV, like Peres did two years ago, otherwise probably died out with Nicolae Ceaucescu, if not with Stalin himself.
Nowhere in the Western world does a political leader cultivate this sort of cult of personality. What's particularly repugnant in this unique case, however, is that the newspaper for "people who think" doesn't criticize it editorially. Instead, it lends its front page to panegyric expressions of flattery and puff. When it comes to The Great Leader, Ha'aretz, like Pravda, prefers for its readers not to think at all. Would they be as slavishly subservient to Madonna?
August 16, 2005
by The Perescope
Guess who celebrated a birthday on August 16? Madonna did, but so did another international pop star.
In case you didn't remember the megalomaniacal gala at Tel Aviv's Mann Auditorium two years ago on that date, attended by the likes of Bill Clinton, Kofi Annan and Mikhail Gorbachev, which cost the indulgent celebrant and the hard-pressed Israeli taxpayer hundreds of thousands of shekels, you would have been reminded by an advertisement on the front page of the August 16th edition of Ha'aretz, the Hebrew daily that arrogantly proclaims itself to be the newspaper for "people who think" -- a self-flattering and overly-generous euphemism that Israeli leftists apply to themselves.
Ran Rahav, a celebrity Israeli PR guru, took out the expensive ad to wish a happy birthday to his friend Shimon Peres. Although he didn't find it necessary to level with Ha'aretz readers by admitting in the ad that he's Peres's long-time buddy, Rahav did pay for enough ink and column inches to thank Peres for his role (or, more accurately, what Peres claims to have been his role) as the father of Israel's nuclear program.
Now we're not talking here of an ad placed by Madonna's PR agent on the front page of Variety. This was an ad signed by one of Israel's leading image makers on the front page of what likes to think of itself as Israel's version of The New York Times.
When was the last time you saw a personality cult like this in a democratic country? The custom of publishing an ad on the front page of a newspaper to wish The Great Leader a happy birthday used to be something worthy of Pravda. The tradition undoubtedly continues with Kim Jung Il in the so-called Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and, for all I know, maybe even with Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe. The custom of holding an expensive birthday bash broadcast on TV, like Peres did two years ago, otherwise probably died out with Nicolae Ceaucescu, if not with Stalin himself.
Nowhere in the Western world does a political leader cultivate this sort of cult of personality. What's particularly repugnant in this unique case, however, is that the newspaper for "people who think" doesn't criticize it editorially. Instead, it lends its front page to panegyric expressions of flattery and puff. When it comes to The Great Leader, Ha'aretz, like Pravda, prefers for its readers not to think at all. Would they be as slavishly subservient to Madonna?
Sunday, August 07, 2005
Peres's "victims of peace"
Finally, he finds the time to pay his respects to the dead
August 7, 2005
by The Perescope
A terrorist dressed in an Israeli army uniform opened fire with an automatic weapon on innocent passengers in a bus last Thursday afternoon. The driver and three passengers, two of whom were sisters, were killed. The terrorist was lynched by the angry crowd that gathered outside the bus when his ammunition ran out.
All told there have been tens of thousands of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians since Shimon Peres launched his Oslo fiasco in 1993. As of last Thursday, a total of 1,329 Israelis had lost their lives in the years since Yasser Arafat and the PLO "renounced" terror.
As a sign of solidarity with the bereaved families, it is customary for a minister in the government to attend the funeral of every victim of terror. Ministers take their turns in this solemn responsibility. Shimon Peres has been a minister for over eight of the twelve years since he initiated his Oslo debacle. But he had never attended even one funeral among the 1,329 that took place as a direct result of his diplomatic failure. Not one.
Two consecutive presidents of Israel has made it their responsibility to visit every bereaved family during its period of mourning, but Shimon Peres has never deigned to visit even one such family, much less all of them. It's just been beneath him. The many dead that Oslo left in its wake have been mere details for a busy, traveled statesman like Shimon Peres, who has preferred to brush them off like dandruff. "Victims of peace" is the contemptuous, Orwellian term he once coined for them.Until now.
Why now? Because the terrorist who opened fire in that bus last week was a Jew, and his four victims were Israeli Arabs. For the first time since the Palestinian terror war against Israeli civilians began five years ago, a single Jew (albeit an AWOL soldier with a psychiatric record) murdered innocent Arabs. So Shimon Peres broke with his coldhearted precedent and paid a condolence call on the elders of the Israeli-Arab town of Shfaram, together with his protégé, Interior Minister Ophir Pines (pronounced not like the tree, but like a certain human organ, believe it or not). It's not clear if Peres actually visited with the bereaved families themselves, but he did make himself available to television cameras as he called upon local dignitaries to reassure them of his commitment to peace and reconciliation between Arabs and Jews.
Meanwhile, the families of Peres's other 1,329 "victims of peace" are still waiting for him to console them and admit responsibility for the disaster that he unleashed on the citizens of the entire country, Jews and Arabs alike.
August 7, 2005
by The Perescope
A terrorist dressed in an Israeli army uniform opened fire with an automatic weapon on innocent passengers in a bus last Thursday afternoon. The driver and three passengers, two of whom were sisters, were killed. The terrorist was lynched by the angry crowd that gathered outside the bus when his ammunition ran out.
All told there have been tens of thousands of terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians since Shimon Peres launched his Oslo fiasco in 1993. As of last Thursday, a total of 1,329 Israelis had lost their lives in the years since Yasser Arafat and the PLO "renounced" terror.
As a sign of solidarity with the bereaved families, it is customary for a minister in the government to attend the funeral of every victim of terror. Ministers take their turns in this solemn responsibility. Shimon Peres has been a minister for over eight of the twelve years since he initiated his Oslo debacle. But he had never attended even one funeral among the 1,329 that took place as a direct result of his diplomatic failure. Not one.
Two consecutive presidents of Israel has made it their responsibility to visit every bereaved family during its period of mourning, but Shimon Peres has never deigned to visit even one such family, much less all of them. It's just been beneath him. The many dead that Oslo left in its wake have been mere details for a busy, traveled statesman like Shimon Peres, who has preferred to brush them off like dandruff. "Victims of peace" is the contemptuous, Orwellian term he once coined for them.Until now.
Why now? Because the terrorist who opened fire in that bus last week was a Jew, and his four victims were Israeli Arabs. For the first time since the Palestinian terror war against Israeli civilians began five years ago, a single Jew (albeit an AWOL soldier with a psychiatric record) murdered innocent Arabs. So Shimon Peres broke with his coldhearted precedent and paid a condolence call on the elders of the Israeli-Arab town of Shfaram, together with his protégé, Interior Minister Ophir Pines (pronounced not like the tree, but like a certain human organ, believe it or not). It's not clear if Peres actually visited with the bereaved families themselves, but he did make himself available to television cameras as he called upon local dignitaries to reassure them of his commitment to peace and reconciliation between Arabs and Jews.
Meanwhile, the families of Peres's other 1,329 "victims of peace" are still waiting for him to console them and admit responsibility for the disaster that he unleashed on the citizens of the entire country, Jews and Arabs alike.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Shimon the hypocrite says
Shimon Says: Papers are papers and realities are realities. We cannot judge the PLO and its leader just by what he is saying. Would we do so, we would be completely wrong and we would be in troubles. [Heritage, Los Angeles, June 3, 1994]
Then Shimon Says: You cannot sit down, reach an agreement and then go around and declare different things. You govern by words and respect for words. If you devalue a word or an agreement, you kill the peaceful solution. [ibid]
Shimon Says: No doubt that Israel's next goal should be to join the Arab League. [Lecture at the Islamic College in Western Galilee, quoted in Ha'aretz, December 21, 1994 and in The Jewish Press, December 30, 1994]
Then Shimon Says: (Asked about the Secretary of the Arab League's response that Israeli Jews had to become Moslems before they could join the Arab League) Well, that also shows that it belongs to the past. The Arab League is part of the past. There is no room for an Arab League. [Middle East Quarterly, March 1995, p. 77]
Shimon Says: Syria is likely to attack Israel even if a peace agreement is reached. [Yediot Ahronot, October 5, 1994]
Then Shimon Says: President Assad has the opportunity to have something extra because he and we can really bring belligerence to a total end [The New York Times, November 23, 1995, p.6]
Shimon Says: [Asked about the wisdom of a deal with the then-dictator of Syria, Hafez al Assad] Well, the system of government is transitional, peace is permanent. [Middle East Quarterly, March 1995, pp. 77-78]
Then Shimon Says: We have learned there is no stable peace unless it is based on relations between democratic states. [Knesset speech, January 25, 1993]
Shimon Says: We shall not recognize the PLO unless it amends the Palestinian Covenant and renounces terrorism. [Knesset speech, August 30, 1993]
Then Shimon Says: The Arabs used to say: "If you recognize the PLO, you will be recognized by the Arab world." We recognized the PLO but we have not been recognized. They also said, "We will put a stop to terrorist actions." I observe that they continue. [Agence France Presse, March 24, 1995]
Shimon Says: We are going to copy a European example which is called Benelux. I hope the relations between the Jordanians, the Palestinians and us will be very much of the same nature that exists in Benelux. [Address to Council of the Socialist International, October 6, 1993]
Then Shimon Says: [There will be] total separation between Israel and PLO-controlled autonomy areas. Check points will be established and the entry and exit of all persons and vehicles in and out of “Israel proper” will be closedly monitored. Anyone, Jew or Arab, violating this, will be punished to the full extent of the law. [from a speech to the nation quoted in The Jewish Press, March 8, 1996]
Then Shimon Says: You cannot sit down, reach an agreement and then go around and declare different things. You govern by words and respect for words. If you devalue a word or an agreement, you kill the peaceful solution. [ibid]
Shimon Says: No doubt that Israel's next goal should be to join the Arab League. [Lecture at the Islamic College in Western Galilee, quoted in Ha'aretz, December 21, 1994 and in The Jewish Press, December 30, 1994]
Then Shimon Says: (Asked about the Secretary of the Arab League's response that Israeli Jews had to become Moslems before they could join the Arab League) Well, that also shows that it belongs to the past. The Arab League is part of the past. There is no room for an Arab League. [Middle East Quarterly, March 1995, p. 77]
Shimon Says: Syria is likely to attack Israel even if a peace agreement is reached. [Yediot Ahronot, October 5, 1994]
Then Shimon Says: President Assad has the opportunity to have something extra because he and we can really bring belligerence to a total end [The New York Times, November 23, 1995, p.6]
Shimon Says: [Asked about the wisdom of a deal with the then-dictator of Syria, Hafez al Assad] Well, the system of government is transitional, peace is permanent. [Middle East Quarterly, March 1995, pp. 77-78]
Then Shimon Says: We have learned there is no stable peace unless it is based on relations between democratic states. [Knesset speech, January 25, 1993]
Shimon Says: We shall not recognize the PLO unless it amends the Palestinian Covenant and renounces terrorism. [Knesset speech, August 30, 1993]
Then Shimon Says: The Arabs used to say: "If you recognize the PLO, you will be recognized by the Arab world." We recognized the PLO but we have not been recognized. They also said, "We will put a stop to terrorist actions." I observe that they continue. [Agence France Presse, March 24, 1995]
Shimon Says: We are going to copy a European example which is called Benelux. I hope the relations between the Jordanians, the Palestinians and us will be very much of the same nature that exists in Benelux. [Address to Council of the Socialist International, October 6, 1993]
Then Shimon Says: [There will be] total separation between Israel and PLO-controlled autonomy areas. Check points will be established and the entry and exit of all persons and vehicles in and out of “Israel proper” will be closedly monitored. Anyone, Jew or Arab, violating this, will be punished to the full extent of the law. [from a speech to the nation quoted in The Jewish Press, March 8, 1996]
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Oslo wasn't his only mistake
Who lost Iran?
The Jerusalem Post
July 27, 2005
by Trita Parsi
In October 1992, years before Iran enriched uranium or had ballistic missiles, Shimon Peres launched a campaign to portray Iran as "the greatest threat and greatest problem in the Middle East." Peres's premature warnings turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Today, Israel should be cautious not to repeat Peres's strategic mistake by pre-empting Iran's conservative president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, since history has shown that prophecies can come true.
As the Labor government opted for closer relations with the Palestinians and the Arab states in Israel's vicinity in 1992, Peres turned the decade-long Israeli doctrine of the periphery on its head and went all out against Iran.
Peres's timing was strange. Only six years earlier, at the height of Iran's ideological zeal, he had sought a "broader strategic relationship" with Iran. Peres had been a driving force behind what later became the Iran-Contra scandal and he even sent his aide to Iran together with Robert "Bud" McFarlane and Oliver North to meet with senior Iranian officials.
By 1992, however, when Peres started portraying Iran as a major threat, Teheran's revolutionary fervor had cooled considerably. Iran was struggling with its war-torn economy and it sought a thaw in its relations with Washington. The clerical regime had no uranium centrifuges, no Shahab-3s and no Fajr rockets in Lebanon. Yet it was a "global threat," Peres insisted.
Sensing a shift in Israel, Teheran concluded that Israel was behind the campaign to isolate Iran. Eager to rebuild its economy and regain its position as the gendarme of the Persian Gulf, Iran feared that a successful Oslo process, and Peres's portrayal of Iran as a threat to the Arab world, would result in Iran's permanent isolation and pariah status.
Consequently, Peres's reversal of the periphery doctrine prompted Teheran to annul Ayatollah Khomeini's dictum that Iran should never be a frontier state in the Palestinian struggle. Up until 1992, in spite of its ideological zeal, Iran had been only marginally involved in anti-Israeli activities. Teheran's opposition to Israel was primarily rhetorical, a fact that hadn't escaped Israeli officials in the 1980s.
Iran even lacked enduring ties to Islamist rejectionists groups due to the Shi'a-Sunni divide. And much to the anger of the PLO, contrary to Teheran's grandiose promises, the Iranian leadership refused to offer material support to secular Palestinian groups, due to their pan-Arab leanings. By 1994, all of that had changed.
Peres's preemptive portrayal of the Iranian threat contributed to the creation of that very threat. To his credit, Binyamin Netanyahu recognized the folly in the Labor Party's approach and significantly lowered Israel's tone, leaving Teheran alone in playing the rhetorical game. Netanyahu also recognized that Peres's vision of a New Middle East left both friends and foes in the Islamic world worried about Israeli hegemonic aspirations.
Today, premature reactions to Ahmadinejad's election risk repeating Peres's mistake. Much concern has been expressed in the media with regard to Ahmadinejad's possible foreign policy inclinations – will he reinitiate the export of the revolution and accelerate the Iranian nuclear program, or will he grudgingly proceed with Iran's quest to rehabilitate itself into the region as a status-quo state? Mindful of the lack of information about Ahmadinejad, most of the speculation is rooted solely in the fact that he defines himself as a conservative.
The conventional wisdom in Washington and Jerusalem reads that the actions of the West have minimal impact on Iran since the clerical regime is acting according to its ideological compass and not reacting to its environment. This is a serious misreading of Iran.
Though the extent of the powers of the Presidency in Iran is debatable, that Iran doesn't formulate its foreign policy in a vacuum is not.
Since the early 1990s, Iran has actively sought to break out of its isolation and win approval and legitimacy for what it considers to be its natural role – a leading state in the Persian Gulf region.
Increasingly, strategic considerations have taken precedence and ideology has become a secondary driving force of Iranian foreign policy. Though its rhetoric hasn't moderated as much as its behavior, there is a clear distinction between Iran's operational policy and the statements coming out of its Friday prayers.
Compared to the mid-1990s, Iran's strategic interest in Israel has decreased significantly. An Israeli-Palestinian settlement will not pose the same strategic threat to Iran's influence in the region today as it would have done in 1994. Consequently, Iran has no compelling strategic reason to escalate tensions with Israel, with or without Ahmadinejad as president.
Unless, that is, Israel and the US escalate first. The harsh rhetoric and preemptive threats coming out of the US and Israel will cause Iran to cling on to its deterrent capabilities. And if Ahmadinejad follows Iran's historic behavioral pattern, Iran will only actualize its deterrence if Israel or the US intensify their efforts to prevent Iran from finding a regional role commensurate with its geo-political weight.
Israel should be careful not to repeat Peres's mistake. The world is a different place today than it was in 1992. Then Israel's military superiority was at its peak. Today, Israel is within the reach of states like Iran.
Israel has nothing to gain from seeing its prophecy on the Iranian threat come true. Escalating tensions with Iran in anticipation of a harsher foreign policy under Ahmadinejad may do just that.
The writer is a Middle East specialist at Johns Hopkins University
The Jerusalem Post
July 27, 2005
by Trita Parsi
In October 1992, years before Iran enriched uranium or had ballistic missiles, Shimon Peres launched a campaign to portray Iran as "the greatest threat and greatest problem in the Middle East." Peres's premature warnings turned into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Today, Israel should be cautious not to repeat Peres's strategic mistake by pre-empting Iran's conservative president-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, since history has shown that prophecies can come true.
As the Labor government opted for closer relations with the Palestinians and the Arab states in Israel's vicinity in 1992, Peres turned the decade-long Israeli doctrine of the periphery on its head and went all out against Iran.
Peres's timing was strange. Only six years earlier, at the height of Iran's ideological zeal, he had sought a "broader strategic relationship" with Iran. Peres had been a driving force behind what later became the Iran-Contra scandal and he even sent his aide to Iran together with Robert "Bud" McFarlane and Oliver North to meet with senior Iranian officials.
By 1992, however, when Peres started portraying Iran as a major threat, Teheran's revolutionary fervor had cooled considerably. Iran was struggling with its war-torn economy and it sought a thaw in its relations with Washington. The clerical regime had no uranium centrifuges, no Shahab-3s and no Fajr rockets in Lebanon. Yet it was a "global threat," Peres insisted.
Sensing a shift in Israel, Teheran concluded that Israel was behind the campaign to isolate Iran. Eager to rebuild its economy and regain its position as the gendarme of the Persian Gulf, Iran feared that a successful Oslo process, and Peres's portrayal of Iran as a threat to the Arab world, would result in Iran's permanent isolation and pariah status.
Consequently, Peres's reversal of the periphery doctrine prompted Teheran to annul Ayatollah Khomeini's dictum that Iran should never be a frontier state in the Palestinian struggle. Up until 1992, in spite of its ideological zeal, Iran had been only marginally involved in anti-Israeli activities. Teheran's opposition to Israel was primarily rhetorical, a fact that hadn't escaped Israeli officials in the 1980s.
Iran even lacked enduring ties to Islamist rejectionists groups due to the Shi'a-Sunni divide. And much to the anger of the PLO, contrary to Teheran's grandiose promises, the Iranian leadership refused to offer material support to secular Palestinian groups, due to their pan-Arab leanings. By 1994, all of that had changed.
Peres's preemptive portrayal of the Iranian threat contributed to the creation of that very threat. To his credit, Binyamin Netanyahu recognized the folly in the Labor Party's approach and significantly lowered Israel's tone, leaving Teheran alone in playing the rhetorical game. Netanyahu also recognized that Peres's vision of a New Middle East left both friends and foes in the Islamic world worried about Israeli hegemonic aspirations.
Today, premature reactions to Ahmadinejad's election risk repeating Peres's mistake. Much concern has been expressed in the media with regard to Ahmadinejad's possible foreign policy inclinations – will he reinitiate the export of the revolution and accelerate the Iranian nuclear program, or will he grudgingly proceed with Iran's quest to rehabilitate itself into the region as a status-quo state? Mindful of the lack of information about Ahmadinejad, most of the speculation is rooted solely in the fact that he defines himself as a conservative.
The conventional wisdom in Washington and Jerusalem reads that the actions of the West have minimal impact on Iran since the clerical regime is acting according to its ideological compass and not reacting to its environment. This is a serious misreading of Iran.
Though the extent of the powers of the Presidency in Iran is debatable, that Iran doesn't formulate its foreign policy in a vacuum is not.
Since the early 1990s, Iran has actively sought to break out of its isolation and win approval and legitimacy for what it considers to be its natural role – a leading state in the Persian Gulf region.
Increasingly, strategic considerations have taken precedence and ideology has become a secondary driving force of Iranian foreign policy. Though its rhetoric hasn't moderated as much as its behavior, there is a clear distinction between Iran's operational policy and the statements coming out of its Friday prayers.
Compared to the mid-1990s, Iran's strategic interest in Israel has decreased significantly. An Israeli-Palestinian settlement will not pose the same strategic threat to Iran's influence in the region today as it would have done in 1994. Consequently, Iran has no compelling strategic reason to escalate tensions with Israel, with or without Ahmadinejad as president.
Unless, that is, Israel and the US escalate first. The harsh rhetoric and preemptive threats coming out of the US and Israel will cause Iran to cling on to its deterrent capabilities. And if Ahmadinejad follows Iran's historic behavioral pattern, Iran will only actualize its deterrence if Israel or the US intensify their efforts to prevent Iran from finding a regional role commensurate with its geo-political weight.
Israel should be careful not to repeat Peres's mistake. The world is a different place today than it was in 1992. Then Israel's military superiority was at its peak. Today, Israel is within the reach of states like Iran.
Israel has nothing to gain from seeing its prophecy on the Iranian threat come true. Escalating tensions with Iran in anticipation of a harsher foreign policy under Ahmadinejad may do just that.
The writer is a Middle East specialist at Johns Hopkins University
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)