A small earthquake rocks the Israeli poliltical landscape
Well - the next defect has arrived - Shimon Peres joining Sharon's party. Who would have thought just over 10 years ago whilst Sharon was screaming invective over Peres's Oslo accords that today they would be sitting in the same party with Peres insisting that only Arik Sharon can bring peace.
So what can explain Peres's dramatic change. There are several explanations:
1. Revenge - being a loser for so long having lost every election, it was time to take revenge on Labour and Amir Peretz.
2. Betting on a winner - this explanation assumes Peres feels that Kadima will win the election and wants an active role in it. Peres can't standing sitting on the side-lines; Peres has been in so many coalitions whilst in opposition to get a ministerial seat, so perhaps this is just a continuation of this tradition.
3. Friendship - Peres is 82, Sharon is 78. There's not may guys there age in politics (Sarid has indicated his resigning - he says he doesn't want to end up like Peres). Peres and Sharon despite their political difference have a warm friendship, although knowing Sharon he know doubt has a good laugh with his aides about Shimon behind his back.
4. Racism - Maybe Peres can not stand the fact that now a Morrocan Amir Peretz has taken over the quintessential Ashkenazi establishment - the labour Party. Peres's brother suggested this and some have thought that Peres's brother was simply reflecting what Shimon Peres thinks. With Arik, Shimon is with a fellow establishment Ashkenazi. Remember, Sharon when all said and done is a prodigy of Ben-Gurion not Jabotinsky.
I would like to suggest a fifth explanation, a more cynical one then the one's above. If there ever was someone in Israeli politics who is perceived as a dove it is Peres. So how could Peres go to Sharon's party. Does he think Sharon will make significant progress beyond the disengagement? Sharon has said there will be no further unilateral withdrawals and says the Road Map is the way forward (which ironically says that a Pal. state is meant to be established in 2005 - one month to go). Sharon has so far not engaged in any serious discussions with Abu Mazen, the gaza crossing points were resolved after tortorously long negotiations with pressure from Rice and Woofellson. At the same time the illegal outposts have not been taken down despite the fact that Sassoon's report was produced months ago. Settlements continue to grow and the fence is slowly encircling Jerusalem.
Does Shimon really think that Arik can bring peace better then the Labour party under Peretz. It is Peretz after all who wishes to return to Shimon's baby - an Oslo kind of process with direct negotiations with Abu Mazen. Surely this should excite Peres.
Perhaps- the truth is Peres is not so dovish has he pretends to be. Perhaps in fact his political positions are not that much different to Sharon himself. After all would Peres have disengaged from Gaza? During the Oslo process it is reported that Rabin stressed that the Palestinians would need territorial continuity whilst it was Peres who suggested the Palestinians simply needed 'functional continuity'. This definition is remarkably similar to Sharon's belief that a Palestinian State needs 'transportation continuity' - a kind of road and tunnel network criss-crossing settlements so that Pal. can get between their towns and villages.
One wonders how dovish Peres really is. After all Peres never went to Camp David in July 2000 (mainly due to Barak making sure he was not on the Israeli team), never participated at Taba in 2001, has not been involved in initiatives like Geneva so it is unclear where Peres stands on these final status issues. Sure he approved the interim Oslo accords but that gave the Palestinians less than 50% of the territories so Peres's attitudes on the big issues has never been tested.
Is Peres the peacenik he claims to be?
So what can explain Peres's dramatic change. There are several explanations:
1. Revenge - being a loser for so long having lost every election, it was time to take revenge on Labour and Amir Peretz.
2. Betting on a winner - this explanation assumes Peres feels that Kadima will win the election and wants an active role in it. Peres can't standing sitting on the side-lines; Peres has been in so many coalitions whilst in opposition to get a ministerial seat, so perhaps this is just a continuation of this tradition.
3. Friendship - Peres is 82, Sharon is 78. There's not may guys there age in politics (Sarid has indicated his resigning - he says he doesn't want to end up like Peres). Peres and Sharon despite their political difference have a warm friendship, although knowing Sharon he know doubt has a good laugh with his aides about Shimon behind his back.
4. Racism - Maybe Peres can not stand the fact that now a Morrocan Amir Peretz has taken over the quintessential Ashkenazi establishment - the labour Party. Peres's brother suggested this and some have thought that Peres's brother was simply reflecting what Shimon Peres thinks. With Arik, Shimon is with a fellow establishment Ashkenazi. Remember, Sharon when all said and done is a prodigy of Ben-Gurion not Jabotinsky.
I would like to suggest a fifth explanation, a more cynical one then the one's above. If there ever was someone in Israeli politics who is perceived as a dove it is Peres. So how could Peres go to Sharon's party. Does he think Sharon will make significant progress beyond the disengagement? Sharon has said there will be no further unilateral withdrawals and says the Road Map is the way forward (which ironically says that a Pal. state is meant to be established in 2005 - one month to go). Sharon has so far not engaged in any serious discussions with Abu Mazen, the gaza crossing points were resolved after tortorously long negotiations with pressure from Rice and Woofellson. At the same time the illegal outposts have not been taken down despite the fact that Sassoon's report was produced months ago. Settlements continue to grow and the fence is slowly encircling Jerusalem.
Does Shimon really think that Arik can bring peace better then the Labour party under Peretz. It is Peretz after all who wishes to return to Shimon's baby - an Oslo kind of process with direct negotiations with Abu Mazen. Surely this should excite Peres.
Perhaps- the truth is Peres is not so dovish has he pretends to be. Perhaps in fact his political positions are not that much different to Sharon himself. After all would Peres have disengaged from Gaza? During the Oslo process it is reported that Rabin stressed that the Palestinians would need territorial continuity whilst it was Peres who suggested the Palestinians simply needed 'functional continuity'. This definition is remarkably similar to Sharon's belief that a Palestinian State needs 'transportation continuity' - a kind of road and tunnel network criss-crossing settlements so that Pal. can get between their towns and villages.
One wonders how dovish Peres really is. After all Peres never went to Camp David in July 2000 (mainly due to Barak making sure he was not on the Israeli team), never participated at Taba in 2001, has not been involved in initiatives like Geneva so it is unclear where Peres stands on these final status issues. Sure he approved the interim Oslo accords but that gave the Palestinians less than 50% of the territories so Peres's attitudes on the big issues has never been tested.
Is Peres the peacenik he claims to be?
posted by SJ at 4:36 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home