President Shimon Peres said Wednesday that he had erred in supporting Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.At the same time though, Peres has not completely retreated from the idea:
The revealing remarks come three years after Israel's evacuation of the volatile coastal strip which has since been seized by Hamas.
"Whatever will happen in the future, we shall not repeat the mistakes we made in leaving Gaza," Peres said in a question and answer session with a group of American Jewish leaders. "It should have been done otherwise. I was for leaving Gaza. I consider myself as one of the persons mistaken."
The dovish leader, who has long been a champion of Israeli territorial withdrawals, said that although "lessons must be drawn" from the 2005 unilateral Gaza pullout, demographic and democratic considerations still necessitate the creation of a Palestinian state.In light of this seeming contradiction, David Hazony's post on the Peres comment is instructive:
"It doesn't change the fact that there is a [demographic] reality," he told the annual Israel meeting of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. "I want to make sure that the state we have remains Jewish."[emphasis added]
Of course, this can be read in more than one way. Aside from the objection from the Right, that disengagement would embolden Israel's enemies and lead to a much worse conflict, there was also an objection from the Left: that Israel should be reaching negotiated settlements rather than taking unilateral actions. Peres's ambiguous words let him hint in both directions at once. Peres is a master at this sort of thing.Also, Peres' demographic reality comment is debatable, based on the miscalculation of the Israeli Arab population and the statistics on Palestinian Arab emigration.
We are just days before Peres has to choose between giving the reins of coalition-forming, and probably government itself, either to Kadima or to Likud. It will be recalled that the whole reason that Kadima exists was that Ariel Sharon failed to get support for disengagement from within his own party, so he broke away to form Kadima, got Peres to come on board, and on this basis went ahead with disengagement anyway. In other words: Peres has chosen this particular moment to distance himself forcefully from the party with the most seats in the Knesset, the party that he himself helped create.Talk about disengagement!In still other words: It looks like he's preparing his old friends in Kadima for the disappointment that his next move will bring. [emphasis added]
Dubya got Arik Sharon to agree to the disengagement. And, it happened. Then? Dubya went to Arik and DEMANDED the same thing get done in the West Bank. (Before the "proof of the pudding" in gaza became obvious even to the blind.)
But that was back in 2006. And, Dubya was on a roll. Then? Dubya's popularity slipped. Irak became a quagmire. And, people began noticing that Dubya was just acting on plans that would put the saud's ON TOP! Dubya also ignored 9/11. And, how the saud's have paid for all the terror. Even changing the face of islam to radical terror! It wasn't safe, anymore, being a mom and pop imm operation is some muslim post, around this globe. (And, the saud's also bought James Baker. And, George Mitchell.) While Dubai wasted money; the saud's were sure American military might would gain them a toe-hold in Iraq.
It's about time Americans learned that you can't buy "hearts and minds." And, that IN Iraq Maliki (who hates Bush's guts from Day 1), went to iran. And, got all the terrorists he needed to counter the saud's. And, their attempts to parlay the sunnis into top posts in Iraq.
How bad is this mess? Iran and Irak are now united shi'a affairs. And, in Irak the military is now TOTALLY Shi'a. And, they're just waiting for the Americans to leave; so they can take their revenge on the sunnis who are left in Irak. "Holding the bag," as we speak.
Why the side-show with Israel? Because the arabs need a scape goat. And, because James Baker promised the saud's "the moon."
Sometimes, a politician learns he doesn't have to do anything. Caesar can fall, not in battle, but in his own senate. And, that's why diplomats never tell the truth. But they "do" great partying. And, have lots of dances. Doesn't amount to much.
For Dubya? His GOP just tanked.
Yes, there's been a changing of the guard.
But it's too soon to tell if some of the old games won't just continue ... because it's too early to call in another set of shots.
Meanwhile, since Eisenhower, America hasn't fielded a good presidency. Or state department. Or CIA. Or even picked up any chips for the bets that have cost so much treasure.
In all of this, Peres, has actual experience. He was there at the side of Ben Gurion. And, he's still there. Never once tipping his cards.
That he'd fight to keep Kadima alive? Yes. I think so. But he also knows that the Likud party came back to life. If this is a trend, then IF the Likud can FIND THE MIDDLE, the mainstream where lots of actual voters hang out ... The party can make a comeback.
While Peres sees that Labor cannot.
Oh, I'll even make a bet. If Peres picks Livni? It's to see her consume the clock. Otherwise? There are small parties who can make a "short term deal" with her. But at the next elections? The outcomes shift, again. (And, politicians, it seems, live for the day they can be glamorized in the press.)
Posted by: Carol Herman at February 18, 2009 5:35 PMisrael left gaza and turned it into one big walled in ghetto. all the illegal settlers were illegally settled in the west bank. the israelis have broken internation law thousands of times by occupying the west bank and stealing its resources.then the israelis have the nerve to call the palestinians terrorist for resisting the slow genocide which is policy in israel. peres is a callous war criminal who has betrayed the jewish people, just like all zionist leaders, and should be held accountable. just another baby killer.
Posted by: sass at February 22, 2009 1:32 AMWhose land do you think Israel is occupying in the West Bank?
The Palestinians? The land there was claimed by Jordan before 1967.
Jordan? They took it illegally during the 1948 War.
Great Britain?
The Ottoman Empire?
And if you cannot tell me how it is occupied, then just what is it that makes those settlers 'illegal'?
Posted by: Daled Amos at February 22, 2009 2:20 AM