That bad.

Israel now has a mentally deranged president, over and over he has made inappropriate, senseless statements, and is obviously not playing with a full deck.

He is putting the land & the people of Israel in grave danger.

Katsav shtupping some women or Peres doing it to the country??

He was bought. He sold his soul to the devil and now lives to do his master's bidding.

I was firm supporter of the Oslo agreement. But I changed my opinion. The agreement has brought death and destruction to both the Palestinian and Israeli side. It is a very uncomfortable and depressing fact to admit, but the formula of land for peace (at least vis a vis the Palestinians) is a failure. Peres as one of the fathers of the agreement does not want to admit to his failure.

His career is not here with us in Israel. His real constituancy is with other world leaders. He's the "moderate" Jew, just like Abbas is the "moderate" Arab. That is the role he has adopted to gain acceptance as he galavants around the world, speaking, conferences, holding talks. He has found a function that gives him access to the high & mighty. I can't presume to see into his mind - is it self-deception, is it rationalization, but it is definitely ambition. His political opinions give him status around the world. We see the same phenomenon with the newly anointed "moderate" Abbas who is only moderate compared with Hamas. But he too, serves a function regardless of reality. If his inflated ego would allow him to admit the great mistake at Oslo, his career would be over - his acceptance by world leaders would end. How odd that the president of a country in reality represents only the interests of other countries?

Aren't the answers to your questions really rather obvious? Peres had just thought one or two steps further than you (after all these years of evidence that a military solution is impossible) and reached the conclusion (in advance) that, precisely in order to avoid the fearful possibility which you describe, it was necessary to win the peace and from a position of strength where it would be possible to determine the terms of the peace. Over time, as Peres then foresaw, the terms would turn against Israel (whether or not a Palestinian state would be established). Instead of still holding the arrogant belief that Israel will be able to maintain a strategic and technical advantage for ever over the Arabs/Palestinians, his thinking appears to have been that it is better to make peace so desirable and successful that they would no longer be prepared to break it (this being the success e.g. of the European Union). This is a long-term project which also takes courage and national sacrifices. It was reasonable of him to attempt to achieve this. Has he been vindicated? Not yet. But will it take a real blitz of rockets raining down on Tel Aviv to persuade you of this?

Officially ,he has no decisional rights but don`t worry about him, he is supported by the Osloists in Israel and in Europe. Add to that the ever powerful media and his "dreams" can play havoc for a longtime in Israel.

Maybe Mr. Peres forgets things or what meant a lot 20, 30 years ago no longer means so much now. After all, he is what? 80? I'm not being disrespectful, but even if one's mind stays as sharp as a tack, one's outlook changes tremendously, when one realizes and has to face the fact that the consequences of whatever one so agonizes over now will not be obvious or suffered until long after one's demise. Most "older" people wouldn't admit it for the world, but there's this almost imperceptible shift in attitude creeping into one's outlook that expresses itself in a self-addressed, low-growl mumble of, "Who knows, who cares, I'm too old for this garbage, let somebody else worry about it." Any problem vexing enough to make one lose sleep or mess up one's nap gets the Scarlett O'Hara treatment: Tomorrow is another day. Israel better hope that Mr. Peres is surrounding himself with some good, young aides, who haven't heard that "Apres moi le deluge," but think more along the lines of "We'll reap what we sow."

Peres lies when it suits him, as anyone who's had dealings with him well knows. His Presidency is a farce. "We have to get rid of the territories… I won't make any secrets of my mind. I shall respect the minority. I shall not insult them…I changed my position. I didn't change my beliefs," The Israeli writer Yoram Hazony wrote recently a book titled “L’Etat juif” in its French translation. (I am sure an English translation must be available). In it, he talks about the historic evolution of Zionism. When it comes to Shimon Peres, he quotes him as saying: - “Any idea of a small Nation-State - the Jewish State included - has collapsed”. - “There is no doubt that the next objective that Israel should pursue is to become a member of the Arab League”. Second, consider this excerpt from Mr. Peres’s interview with Ha’aretz following his defeat by Benjamin Netanyahu in the May 1996 prime ministerial election: Interviewer: What happened in this election? Peres: We lost. Interviewer: Who is we? Peres: We, that is the Israelis. Interviewer: And who won? Peres: All those who do not have an Israeli mentality. Interviewer: And who are they? Peres: The Jews. Based on his own words, it is not outlandish to call Shimon Peres a non-Jew. Indeed, when Peres was Israel’s foreign minister in the 1991-1995 Rabin government, he applied for Israel’s membership in the Arab League!

...towards what - self-immolation? What in the history of the Arab actions towards Israel following an act of appeasement proffered by Israel gives you confidence that the surrender of Judea and Samaria would not in fact bring the very "blitz of rockets raining down on Tel Aviv of which you warn that Israeli 'arrogance' will ensure? Did you happen to miss the blitz of rockets raining down on Sderot following the surrender of the Gaza settlements? Do you somehow believe any further land surrender would not have similar 'benefits' for Israel? By what perversion of logic do you conclude that bringing Tel Aviv within range of Katyushas would preclude their use rather than assure it? Do you forget the rockets raining down on Haifa a year ago. Tel Aviv is much closer to the West Bank than Haifa is to the Lebanon border. Yes, Peres' capitulation brings Israel a step further...towards annihilation.

Good question. Both dudes are members of Sharon's Kadima. Who is better?

Never served one day in the army -yet he poses as mr. security Never had any formal education -yet he poses as a scholar. He keeps farting slogans like: "new middle east" "valley of peace" and brings disasters on our heads: Oslo...

I can't help fearing that both concepts defended at one time or another by Peres, 1) to militarily subjugate and humiliate the 'unruly' Arabs or 2) to pseudo-compromise with them from a domineering position on a two-state-solution, in the long run are doomed to failure. Isn't the notion of a democratic Jewish state per se an aching contradiction with no real future? How can anybody believe that the Palestinian Arabs will ever forget and forgive their having been humiliated and displaced from their homeland?

Peres is a mistake to have as President. Sorry but land for peace is not and will not bring peace. The land is G-d given Israel is to have not give away.

Having a Palistinian state while israelis and their neighbors are at war is dangerous, as Peres clearly states. However, having a Palistinian state when israelis are at peace with their neighbors makes sense. The better of the two situations is (obviously) the latter; in terms of pikuah nefesh. Thus when presented with only these two options israelis should aim for the latter. Furthermore, the status-quo of the territories is a liability to the jewish state. Something needs to change. But that change does not mean that either Jews or palistinians need to be dispossessed. Creative solutions can be found and it is the responsibility of the mitnahelim leadership to begin exploring ALL possible avenues of MUTUAL self-determination between themselves and the palistinians. B'cos ulitmately these are their communities. The religious mitnahelim might want to consider the original agudath yisro'el platform before 1948, which sought autonomy and international recognition/representation but not territorial sovereignty. This will allow more flexibility to the Jewish state to pursue a non-pseudo-messianic political agenda on behalf of jews who do not have these beliefs, while respecting both the mitnahelim and palistinian rights to self-determination.

You totally misunderstand me: I am not at all advocating "By what perversion of logic do you conclude that bringing Tel Aviv within range of Katyushas would preclude their use rather than assure it?" Quite the contrary: the aim was to avoid this possibility by a different strategy. The point is this: first they had rifles, then they got heavier weapons, then they developed rockets, then they develop more capable warheads etc. ... At some point Tel Aviv would be threatened by a serious blitz (and not by oversize fireworks being sent off indiscriminately). This would mean 100's or 1000's of deaths in a couple of hours and such serious dislocation that even normal life in wartime wouldn't be possible, unlike what happened in Northern Israel last summer (which was rather like a "normal day"during 1944 in London). That appears to be Peres' position: that this level of threat to Tel Aviv over time becomes inevitable when one relies solely on a military solution (as you rightly point out, most of the centre of Israel is closer to the West Bank than the North is to the Lebanese border). Thus what he wrote decades ago is directly related to his pursuit of the Oslo agenda. From the strategic high point of 1969-73, Israel's military position in the light of potential asymmetric war could only get weaker. Hence his hope to define the TERMS of the peace before Tel Aviv did indeed come under threat and before that strategic advantage is dissipated. A military solution where one has to spend one's life in a bunker is no solution, and he aimed to avoid that. Hence there is no contradiction between his earlier expressed views and his subsequent actions and statements. This is not so difficult to grasp. Therefore the article is disingenious suggesting contradictions where none exist. It remains to be seen whether it will be possible to achieve what he hoped with his strategy. But it certainly won't be much of a life in Israel in the long run if one looks for a military/technological control solution. Rather, without some sort of lasting peace agreement, it will most likely mean living for 100's of years under constant military siege conditions. I cannot imagine that the Palestinians will have any shorter memories or give up any easier than other nations which have been built on grievance. And Judaism forbids Israel to absorb them, so unlike in the case of a colonial strategy, subjugation has no purpose but will rather just strengthen their resolve. Basically there is no option to that of IMPOSING a peace agreement.

working for barak and peres as a bodyguard, but moonlighting as a hit man for the mafia bosses? could this be true?

As you say, there are all sorts of possible arrangements which would give requisite guarantees to each side. That is all Peres stands for: he certainly is not a traitor by any stretch of the imagination.

Maybe because you live in London, the world's financial capital, you haven't noticed but Peres is quite right when he says: - “Any idea of a small Nation-State - the Jewish State included - has collapsed”. - “There is no doubt that the next objective that Israel should pursue is to become a member of the Arab League”. exactly why and how is this "anti-Zionist"? Zionism is about Jewish autonomy; it is not in principle "anti-Arab" and certainly not regarding economic relations. What would you propose as an alternative -- that Israel become part of the American free trade area?? That is also hardly designed for Jewish State autonomy in which ethical principles should underlie economic behaviour. European Union membership neither There's a lot to be said for serious economic engagement in the Arab League ...

You told me what you think,how he is contrary to his own thoughts.OK, however--- Can you not ask him to explain himself,can you not talk to him ? Will he refuse to communicate with you.? Are you just going to sit and wonder? I don't understand this any more than you understand his contradiction of view's he professes to have held.. It almost sound's like empty complaining ,because you are saying you have no portal of communication, which is just as disturbing as your claim his contradiction's do not make sense. It seem's you need to find answer's and look for solid answer's.. He's not a god ,surely you can talk to him.You should like to know why he has a change of view, There has to be a reasonable explantion. Do you agree,what I say , or is my view not make sense to you ? kkg

sadly we are the minority in this sea of cr*p...

Maybe being in Europe - which by the the way is not that far from being in London - you have missed that actually the number of small states has massively increased in the last 15 years since the collapse of the USSR and in fact the trend for the last 100 years has been MORE "small nation states" not less. So on a factual basis, Peres is wrong. Israel should apply to be a member of the Arab league if only to show Arab prejudice - do you honestly believe they would let us join? Why would a free trade with the US undermine Israeli economic principles? I can see why full EU membership would not give us more than we have already.

Dear Danny: read what Peres is quoted as saying. "The IDEA of the small nation state has collapsed" (my emphasis) He did not talk about the number of small nation states nor I would assert about the cultural autonomy which they aim to cultivate. What was the original idea -- that self-sufficiency in basic commodity production and a large degree of economic self-sufficiency would allow one to control one's own economy and ultimately one's own political destiny. This has become increasingly less true over the last 40 years, a result of what is now called globalisation. Even large nation states no longer even pretend that they can maintain the original idea. Notwithstanding this, there are more small nation states which hope for cultural autonomy. "So on a factual basis, Peres is wrong." so, no, actually he is right. "Israel should apply to be a member of the Arab league if only to show Arab prejudice - do you honestly believe they would let us join?" I take it that his initial approach was a bit of a political gag, but can you name a reason why in principle Israel should not make such an approach, at the very least in terms of economic relations? I'd imagine they actually won't care a great deal because by the time Israel actually might beome a member, many of them will have vastly outpaced the Israeli economy. "Why would a free trade with the US undermine Israeli economic principles?" I didn't say Israeli, I said Jewish ... e.g. Social and labour rights?