A half president
President should represent entire nation, not cause antagonism due to role in promoting Oslo process
The inauguration of Shimon Peres as the new president of the State of Israel was characterized by ceremony and speeches. Many people participated in adorning the man who replaced Moshe Katsav as president, who – so they believe – will restore the lost honor of the presidential institution, and who will make it what it should be: An institution that symbolizes and unifies the State of Israel and the People of Israel.
After the Katsav scandal, everybody will compare Peres to his predecessor, but only a few will ask whether the new president is the appropriate person to serve as a symbol. Even fewer will ask: A symbol for what?
The long life of Peres, as well as the shorter life of the State of Israel, can be divided into two periods: Pre-1993 and post-1993. The division line is September 13, 1993. This date is considered – by many at that time, and by much fewer today – as a turning point in the status of Israel in the region and as a breakthrough towards peace.
This date is considered – by many at that time, and by many more today – as a turning point in the status of Israel, but in the opposite direction, towards the hazardous path that culminated in September 2000, when the Oslo war started, the inevitable and expected outcome of the agreement with the same name.
Shimon Peres symbolizes this fault line more than any other Israeli politician. He is the man who pushed the Oslo accords; who made Yitzhak Rabin fall into the dangerous trap from which he did not succeed to escape even when he started to realize its meaning; who brought the Palestinian occupation army headed by the arch-terrorist Arafat into the heart of the Land of Israel; who received the Nobel Prize for peace that eventually turned to be a prize for terror; who created the continuing split among the Jews in Israel between those addicted to the "peace" illusion and those who correctly understood the meaning of the Oslo "peace".
The man who is responsible more than anyone else to this reality and to this split is not the appropriate person to serve as a unifying symbol.
One of the most beautiful hours of Shimon Peres – then defense minister – and of the State of Israel was when the decision about the Operation Yonatan was made, rescuing of the kidnapped passengers from Entebbe, Uganda.
This operation was the climax of Israel's war against terror. Since then, it is mainly the low points that may be remembered: the recognition of the terror organization for the liberation of all Israel (wrongly called PLO); fishy bargains with terror organizations that accustomed the enemy to kidnap and blackmail; the transfer of Jews from their homes in Gaza Strip and northern Samaria; the failure in the Second Lebanon War; seven years of abandoning the residents of the town of Sderot and its surroundings to Qassam missiles; the brainwashing regarding the need to strengthen the "good" terrorists like Abu Mazen and so on.
'Last 14 years do not create hope'
Peres served as a co-partner of the climax and symbol of Entebbe (July 4, 1976); but he was also the architect of the abyss and the symbol of the march of folly that started on September 13, 1993. As his name is identified with the most terrible failure of Israel, he cannot serve as a symbol for the state struggling for its existence.
The Oslo "peace" laid the basis for the "two-state vision"; the threat to uproot hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes in the Land of Israel; and the forced eviction of thousands of them. This is a serious blow to the Zionist vision, as well as removing the terrestrial basis for solving the Jewish problem.
Since 1993, Israeli governments have dealt more and more with the "Palestinian problem" and the "right of return" of Arab refugees into the Land of Israel, rather than with materializing Herzl's Zionist vision, dealing with the Jewish problem, bringing more and more Jewish immigrants to Israel, and resettling of thousands of Jews exiled in their land by their own government.
Nothing can be a more negative message to potential immigrants to Israel than the eviction (transfer) plans of Sharon and Olmert, who continued the dangerous path of the "two-state vision". The man who led to this situation cannot serve as a symbol for identification of the people of Israel in the Diaspora with the State of Israel.
Past experience with Peres is not promising. There is no chance that a man in his age will change. It means that his old habits and maneuvers will characterize his term as president: endless subversion; tendency to carry out questionable maneuvers; preferring meetings with world leaders rather than serving as president of Israeli citizens; trying to promote his failed leftist agenda even from within the presidential residence and, as if he represents all the citizens, inviting terror leaders to the residence.
It is hard to believe that a politician like him will abstain from promoting his 14-years old obsessive agenda, or from intervening with the government's functioning. Being so closely identified with one half of the public is expected to make him president of that half, while the other half will feel estranged.
This situation will harm the presidential institution instead of restoring it. One can argue whether this post is needed, but as long as it is not canceled, the president should be one who represents the whole nation, and not one who causes antagonism among so many.
It is not easy or pleasant to point out that Peres is not appropriate for the honored post. But the distress following the Katsav scandal cannot be allowed to prevent criticism concerning Peres, a man who arouses serious doubts among so many Israelis.
The last 14 years do not create hope among those who believe in the Zionist vision, rather than the "two-state vision". Peres' functioning during these 14 years only strengthens the doubts regarding the spirit that will come out from the presidential residence.
The writer is a former chairman of Professors for a Strong Israel
