Should Shimon Peres remain president of Israel or should a new leader take charge?

Peres

1 of 4

by Robert C. Sage

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Shimon Peres is now the patriarch of Israeli politics and he deserves this final chance to bring peace to his land. The Israeli President's position is largely ceremonial, yet he has coveted it for years, because of it provides a platform for affecting national and international issues. Having been a government leader since Israel's founding, he has already had decades of experience in day-to-day governance. For years, he has been a spokesman for Israel, regardless of which party was in power. He now has the opportunity to stay above the fray and yet still speak on the issues of the day, potentially using the presidency as a "bully pulpit

Peres was in the Knesset (parliament) from 1959 until inaugurated president in 2007 and was a minister in 12 cabinets. He was prime minister 3 times and served as finance minster, foreign minister and defense minister. As a young man, Peres was viewed as hawkish. Early on, he was in charge of Israel's military procurement and served as Director General of the Ministry of Defense. He set up the Dimona nuclear reactor, where Israel's nuclear weapons were developed. After the 1993 Oslo Accords, he won the Nobel Peace Prize with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat. Some consider him to be dovish now, although he continues to strongly support Israel's military.

Peres seems genuinely interested in peace. In 1996, he created the Peres Center for Peace which is devoted to building peace through "socio-economic cooperation and development and people-to-people interaction". That includes promotion of cooperation at governmental and citizen levels, changing mindsets ("agents of change") and providing humanitarian healthcare assistance to Palestinians. The president is an eternal optimist and noted on 10/9/07, "The impression that Israel has doubts regarding the need to achieve peace must not be created" and predicted the Annapolis summit in November is "likely to be an opening for the attainment of a peace agreement."

Israel was born from guerilla struggle and it has had a long series of wars with Arab neighbors. It seems that some consider war to be the natural state of affairs for Israel. Ironically, it was not an Arab, but rather a militant extremist Israeili who killed Peres' contemporary Yitzhak Rabin. Peres himself is also at potential risk, although it is reasonable to assume that security has been improved since then. Peres continues to warn the world of the dangers of Iran, so he maintains a foot in the militarist camp. Paradoxically, he seems to believe that he can best promote peace with Palestinians, while justifying a strong and proactive Israeli military. Hopefully, he can realize his dream of creating the conditions for Israelis to live in peace in the Middle East.

Considering the militant tendencies in Israeli society, he probably has no other choice. Certainly, Israel will not be able to stop fighting Muslims unless it learns how to live in peace. The past practices of disproportionate responses to provocations cannot be maintained if Israel is to create sustainable peace. There are daunting challenges in finding a path to peace, both with Palestinians in Gaza (Hamas) and the West Bank (Fatah) and also in Lebanon (Hezbollah). It is interesting to note that some of the economic and humanitarian purposes of the Peres Peace Center appear to closely parallel those of the more militant Palestinian groups, namely Hamas and Hezbollah. Peres obviously recognizes that to win the hearts of Palestinians, there must be inter-racial understanding and cooperation and that Israel has resources, such as in healthcare.

At the same time, Peres is not taking a public position regarding the controversial topic of torture, something that has been a well-documented practice of the Israeli government. He also has not ensured that Israeli laws protect the rights of non-Jews to the same degree as Jews. Thus, while Peres is more progressive than the Likud Party, he is still a product of his environment. Will it be enough to breach the gap between the hardliners on both sides? Can Peres push Olmert and other warmonger-types to give up enough inducements and compromises to cause Hamas and Hezbollah to give up their goals of destruction of Israel?

The legacy of past and continuing Israeli excesses is a high bar to pass over. The history on Israeli relations with Palestinians is not very encouraging. Many Israelis do not consider Palestinians to be human in the same sense as Israelis. The brutality inflicted on Palestinians in particular is based on an attitude of Jewish supremacy, due to the belief that only they are the chosen people. Fortunately, there are Israelis who promote full equality under the law and peaceful co-existence. Such "peaceniks" are Peres' natural allies in developing sustainable harmony. Middle East Peace is in the balance.

Since Peres was instrumental in bringing Israel to its preeminent position in military strength in the region, it would be apropos that he be central to creating the conditions for lasting peace. Otherwise, his efforts to secure the safety of his land would have been in vain. I want to believe that Peres recognizes that endless war is not peace and does not lead to peace.

Learn more about this author, Robert C. Sage.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.