History is made of biographies of men and women who failed to forecast the future. – Shimon Peres, Amman, May 26, 2013
My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British prime minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time. – Neville Chamberlain, September 30, 1938
The Arab Peace Initiative is a meaningful change and a strategic opportunity. It replaces the strategies of war with the wisdom of peace….History will judge us not by the process of negotiations, but by its outcome. – Shimon Peres – Amman, May 26, 2013
To: Shimon Peres, President of Israel
I confess I was appalled by your speech at the World Economic Forum in Amman earlier this week. There were many elements in it I found disconcerting, but what I found particularly disturbing was your approving embrace of the so-called “Arab Peace Initiative” (API).
Devious, deceptive, disastrous
There are of course, numerous reasons why Israel should firmly reject the API as a devious, deceptive and disastrous blueprint for its demise. But this in itself is not why I find your endorsement of it so galling.
Rather it is because no one other than yourself has, in the past, better elucidated why this is so.
Indeed, you can hardly be unaware of the fact that the adoption of the API entails Israel undertaking measures that are the diametric opposite of those you once prescribed.
After all, no one other than yourself has set out a more compelling rationale why implementing the measures it calls for would provide the Arabs an opportunity to emaciate Israel, compress it back into indefensible borders and make its survival dependent solely on their discretion – creating, in your own words, “compulsive temptation to attack Israel from all directions.”
I trust, therefore, that you will fully understand why it is so perturbing to encounter the staggering dichotomy between the views you once expounded and those you propound today, particularly as the experience of recent decades appears to corroborate the sober realism of your former positions rather than the flighty optimism of your current ones.
Elements of the API
In broad brushstrokes, the API comprises Israeli agreement to: full withdrawal from all “occupied Arab territories,” i.e. from all of Judea-Samaria and the Golan Heights, and a return to the pre-1967 frontiers, aptly designated by the late Labor Party dove Abba Eban as “Auschwitz borders”; recognition of an independent Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital; the “right of return” for millions of so-called “refugees” to Israel (sometimes euphemistically phrased as a “just solution” to the Palestinian refugees problem.
I am sure that you will agree that in the not-too-distant past, acceptance of these would have been considered tantamount to treason by all elements of the mainstream Zionist political establishment – yourself included.
Indeed, on the basis of his last address to the Knesset (October 5, 1995), seeking ratification of the Oslo II Accords, we must assume your colleague and co-recipient of the Nobel Peace prize, Yitzhak Rabin, would have rebuffed them contemptuously.
After all, in that address, he rejected every one of the above elements of the API in the permanent resolution of the conflict he envisioned – from the recognition of full Palestinian statehood, through the division of Jerusalem, to the withdrawal to the pre- 1967 lines.
Ill-advised and illusionary
Recently, the API sponsors, currently headed by Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad Al Thani, have “magnanimously” agreed to the “possibility” of infinitesimal modifications to the pre-1967 lines by means of “mutually agreed, minor comparable land exchanges.”
One could devote an entire essay to explaining why such “mutually agreed, minor comparable land exchanges” are nothing but ill-advised illusion, whose pursuit would be futile and foolhardy. However, suffice it to say, that if such exchanges were “minor” they would have no significant strategic value, and if they were to have such value, they would not be “mutually agreed,” nor would there be any realistic chance of them being “comparable” – whatever that might mean.
So in exchange for consenting (read “capitulating”) to this manifestly suicidal (a term I feel you too would have endorsed until recently) list of concessions, the Arab League will deign to “establish normal relations with Israel.”
Gee, what a bargain! All those concessions for a promise of “normal relations” with a list of nations that includes Somalia, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and perhaps Syria.
And then of course there is Islamist Egypt, publicly mulling revoking the peace accord, Hezbollah dominated-Lebanon; imploding Yemen; unstable Libya; Tunisia, slipping ever-closer to a Shari’a-compliant society; Algeria increasingly menaced by al-Qaida affiliates in the south…
What possible significance – or durability – could “normal relations” have with a group of such inherently inimical nations?
But I do not want to get bogged down in a discussion of the demonstrably deadly defects of the API. What I would like to focus on is how to comprehend your public support for it in light of your clearly stated repudiation of its core elements in the past – and the emerging realities that appear only to reinforce the validity of that repudiation.
Not a slip of the tongue
At the outset, I must point out that none of the following citations can be dismissed as a mere slip of the tongue, misrepresenting the views that you once held. For they all come from books written by you and in which you clearly invested considerable thought in formulating.
The one is a volume, available only in Hebrew, titled Tomorrow is Now (K’Et Machar) written in 1978, long before “the extremist settler movement” had acquired much prominence in Israeli society. The book is based on an interview with a preeminent journalist of the time, the late Haggai Eshed, and sets out your vision for the future of the nation and the programmatic prescriptions by which this was to be attained.
The other is the much-publicized The New Middle East, which was published in 1993, the very year the Oslo Accords were concluded, and in which you once again lay out your vision – this time for the region.
In them, you articulate your positions on a range of topics very relevant for the API, and your reasons for these positions – which I should now like to present to you.
Dangers of Palestinian state
In Tomorrow is Now you warned sternly – and as it turns out, accurately – of the realities liable to emerge should Israel accept the idea of a Palestinian state: “The establishment of such state means the inflow of combat- ready Palestinian forces (more than 25,000 men under arms) into Judea and Samaria; this force, together with the local youth, will double itself in a short time.
“It will not be short of weapons… and in a short space of time, an infrastructure for waging war will be set up in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Israel will have problems in preserving day-to-day security, which may drive the country into war, or undermine the morale of its citizens.In time of war, the frontiers of the Palestinian state will constitute an excellent staging point for mobile forces to mount attacks on infrastructure installations vital for Israel’s existence, impede the freedom of action of the Israeli air force, and cause bloodshed among the population… adjacent to the frontier line.” p. 232
You cautioned: “If a Palestinian state is established, it will be armed to the teeth.Within it there will be bases of the most extreme terrorist forces, equipped with antitank and anti-aircraft shoulder-launched rockets, endangering not only random passersby, but also every airplane and helicopter taking off in the skies of Israel and every vehicle traveling along the major traffic routes in the Coastal Plain”. p.255
Given the precedents of previous withdrawals, can you honestly say that in today’s realities, if the IDF were to evacuate Judea-Samaria and abandon the Golan – as the API dictates – these dangers would be in any way been significantly reduced?
Strategic importance of territory
You astutely refuted the two-state-compliant myth that modern weaponry has reduced the strategic importance of territory, arguing that in fact enhanced firepower, mobility and range increase this importance: “In 1948, it may have been possible to defend the ‘thin waist’ of Israel’s most densely populated area, when the most formidable weapon used by both sides was the cannon of limited mobility and limited firepower…[However], with the development of the rapid mobility of armies, the defensive importance of territorial expanse has increased… Without a border which affords security, a country is doomed to destruction… ” pp. 235, 254
You cautioned soberly: “It is of course doubtful whether territorial expanse can provide absolute deterrence. However, the lack of minimal territorial expanse places a country in a position of an absolute lack of deterrence. This in itself constitutes almost compulsive temptation to attack Israel from all directions… ” p. 255
The value of demilitarization agreements
You somewhat denigratingly dismissed placing any store on agreements with the Arabs or on demilitarization arrangements with them, remarking: “The major issue is not [attaining] an agreement, but ensuring the actual implementation of the agreement in practice. The number of agreements which the Arabs have violated is no less than number which they have kept.” p. 255
The same skepticism as to the value of any accords on demilitarization is reflected, a decade and a half later, in your “The New Middle East” where you warn: “Even if the Palestinians agree that their state have no army or weapons, who can guarantee that a Palestinian army would not be mustered later to encamp at the gates of Jerusalem and the approaches to the lowlands? And if the Palestinian state would be unarmed, how would it block terrorist acts perpetrated by extremists, fundamentalists or irredentists?” p. 169
How indeed?
Strategic importance of settlements
But perhaps the most astounding of all is your stance on the issue of “settlements” and the imperative you saw for their development.
You urged Israel “to create a continuous stretch of new settlements; to bolster Jerusalem and the surrounding hills, from the north, from the east, and from the south and from the west, by means of the establishment of townships, suburbs and villages – Ma’aleh Adumin, Ofra, Gilo, Beit El, Givon… – to ensure that the capital and its flanks are secured, and underpinned by urban and rural settlements. These settlements will be connected to the Coastal Plain and Jordan Valley by new lateral axis roads; the settlements along the Jordan River are intended to establish the Jordan River as the de facto security border; however it is the settlements on the western slopes of the hills of Samaria and Judea which will deliver us from the curse of Israel’s ‘narrow waist’… the purpose of the settlements in the Golan is to ensure that this territorial platform will no longer constitute a danger, but a barrier against a surprise attack…” p. 48
These are not the exhortations of a wild-eyed, bearded radical rabbi, or scruffy hilltop youth, They are yours. Now, what are those who heeded your call to “deliver us from the curse of Israel’s ‘narrow waist’” to think?
Meaningless, mendacious mantra of “change”
Of course, the breathtaking gap between your previous and present positions cannot be explained by the meaningless, mendacious mantra of “change.”
For while it is certainly true that there have been far-reaching changes in the region over the past three-and-half decades, these changes – especially the more recent ones – serve only to underscore the validity of your former views, and to undermine that of your current ones.
It is precisely because of the changes that have raged across the region that your Amman speech came across as so absurdly Kafkaesque, so detached from reality, so shamelessly cynical.
Surely it is time for Israeli taxpayers (and voters) to demand an end to such capricious conduct of our foreign affairs – or at least, a convincing explanation for it. Other than “change,” of course.
Kindly consider this an urgent request to do so.
Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.net) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.
www.martinsherman.net
Thank you Martin Sherman for pointing out that Mr. Peres was intelligent once, I thought that he always was an idiot.
ArnoldHarris Said:
I agreed with everything you wrote until point 3:
I strongly doubt that power will be with Russia, or Europe.
I do believe that US will remain the dominant power in the 21st century.
However a strong Israel is much more useful to the United States, than a weak depended one. When Israel makes itself strong, US will naturally seek alliance with it.
@ oldjerry:
There are so many rumors, many of which are highly credible, regarding that item that Barry’s accounts just skim over the top. Barry is very good at what he does.
A simple correlation between who are Pereses “best pals” serves to classify the item for what he is. Obama, the Clintons, the Vatican, Cameron, Arafat, Abbas “loved” or loves the Peresite in chief.
What more need to be said to assure his status and goals.
SHmuel HaLevi 2 Said:
When you say “much worse” are you referring to the information about Peres in Barry Chamish’s book Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin?
@ martin:
Depends what one means by “counts”. If you mean US money bags and local israelitists bred to rip off the world, then yes. If you mean bribe riddled filth that usurped power positions here, yes again. I guess that is the foreign, Chicago styled gangsters understanding of “counting”.
Otherwise, decent and honest Jews and non Jews, despise both the “majers” and Count Faust clone AKA Peres and the ghastly Peresites as well as their pals such as Clinton, Abbas, etc.
There are different ways of counting as opposed to your view of counting, you see Martin.
Peres was, is and will be bad news.
I still do not understand the Israelis.
If Peres is everything the comments say he is, the rational question that immediately comes to mind and for which an answer is needed: Why is he still there?
The answer must be the Israelis who count do not really care.
In any way transacting among “peacesters” is falling into their bog traps.
Peres was ever suspected and proved to be the archtype of the internal enemy. Netanyahu volunteered to be groomed to be his understudy on betrayal.
When I was 15 I learnt directly from Golda the standing of Peres in the MAPAI> He was despised and distrusted. NEVER popularily elected to public offices which he evetually usurped by using sabotage, foreign financing, and much worse.
@ oldjerry:
I was one of seventeen teenagaers, about 15 years old, preparing for ALIAH at one of the HACHSHAROT in the BA Proving in Argentina. One day we received a call telling us the Mrs. Golda Meir was comming to visit Argentina and would travel about 200 km to the several farms set up as training centers. She arrived mid day some two weeks later and the Embassy black Dodge blew its raidator in our farm’s access lane. What was supposed to be a quick stop over turned into a four hour stay until a new car arrived. We talked at the collective dining room about just about anything that piked our interest. She was a superb patriot.
One of the subjects were the “young leaders”, Including Motta, Rabin, Peres and others.
I wish I can repeat word by word the harsh details she let us know about Peres, even then.
He was feared and despised.
Peres hate us all because he was rejected every time when looking for individual support.
His roles were all “arrangements” using foreign power and money to keep the very bad unJew up there.
He is poison and must go. He is not alone by far. Netanyahu is not much different and Livni is even worse.
@ drjb:
Peres is more than just a drooling, senile old man. He is and has been a mendacious, evil, conniving politician capable of any crime, possibly including murder,to achieve his ends. In any action he has taken the question has to be asked, what’s in it for him.
Mr Sherman was way too polite and analytical. The plain and simple truth is that Mr Shimon Peres, at the age of 90, is probably somewhat senile and, at times, fails to fully understand or remember some of what he says. He should be at home relaxing and playing with his grandchildren, if he remembers their names, and leave the world of politics and statesmanship to those whose alertness and awareness is still not marred by age.
When will Shimon Peres retire???? when he falls asleep in public during the next international peace conference??? when he starts drooling from that hypotonic lower lip????, or when he forgets where he lives???
Enough is enough, Peres, lech habayta!!!!.
In place of wagging figurative literary tongues at an aged and seemingly irresponsible fool who has contradicted himself over almost all of Israel’s strategic growth and national defense policies, the Jewish nation and spokesmen — self-appointed or otherwise — should concentrate on the following short-term and long term efforts on behalf of a safer and much stronger State of Israel:
1) Do everything possible to speed up Jewish settlement of Shomron and Yehuda, to the extent that evacuating such a population would be impossible to achieve and could in fact trigger a national insurrection that would topple any government in Israel other than leaderships dedicated to total Jewish control over the entirety of Eretz-Yisrael.
2) Prepare Israel militarily for the wars that are almost certain to come as countries such as Iraq and Syria splinter into ethnically-defined (Kurds vs Arabs) and/or sectarian Muslim (Shii’a vs Sun’a) or gang-affiliated (Hezbollah, al-Qaida, Hamas, el Fatah, et al), or monarchist vs non-monarchist groups.
As these processes of Islamic splintering and fracturing continue, countries such as Lebanon, Turkey, Trans-Jordan and Saudi Arabia may break up as Syria and Iraq are now doing. As for Afghanistan, all it ever has been is an assortment of mountain-based tribal peoples who share no common language.
3) Get Israel as soon as possible out from under the overlordship of successive US governments. No matter what they say to you or to themselves, they never have been your friends. And evenb if they were your friends and allies, Washington no longer commands the money or can afford to deploy the naval, ground and air forces necessary to guard either Israel or whatever is left of their assets among their Islamic client states. The powers of the future will be Russia, China, India, and in Europe, Germany.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI