From the Editor

Martin Peretz Takes Off His Blinders

On June 26, the New Republic published an eloquent article by its publisher, Martin Peretz, describing the "fatal flaws" of Oslo. Sitting on his rooftop apartment by the Mediterranean, Peretz saw the hills of Samaria to the east and feared that soon mortar and missiles will target old Israel from new Palestine. Shivers running down his spine at the reckless "peace processors," Peretz's eyes even opened to what has eluded so many, the fact (endlessly stressed by your editor) that Shimon Peres is a buffoon. Here is Peretz's delightful description: "Early in June, I heard Peres pronounce on just about everything important to Israel in a muddle of an after-dinner talk in Jerusalem. We will turn bullets into ballots. We will turn terrorists into tourists. Frontiers are of no importance. Science knows no borders. Science knows no language. The science of knowledge and the knowledge of science. One thing we do know is that Peres himself knows no science. If he did, he would know that science by itself makes neither people nor government virtuous."

Given that Peretz has in effect joined AFSI (no, he hasn't sent in membership dues), it may seem churlish to complain. But why does Peretz, to quote the first paragraph of his article, "only now...have the confidence to admit that I think the Oslo agreements were a mistake." Where has he been the last seven years? Why did he imagine at the outset that Arafat was a rational "partner for peace?" If he was carried away by the initial euphoria, why did his eyes not open when the blood flowed during Oslo's first year and the buses exploded in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem? Why do his eyes only open when the curtain comes down on the Jewish state? The way Peretz phrases his sentence it sounds as if he has believed for some time that Oslo was a mistake -- but only now has "the confidence" to come out directly and say it. Peretz shows no lack of confidence in pronouncing upon a variety of issues: why did he fall silent when Israel's survival -- and there is no question that Peretz is and has for decades been a strong supporter of Israel -- was hanging in the balance? If people like Peretz had spoken up years earlier, their voices might have had an impact. Now it is too little, too late.

The Last Zionists?

Thanks to Steven Plaut for drawing our attention to unlikely allies. When Israel took the Golan Heights in 1967, the population left behind was mainly Druse, but Plaut notes that one Alawite village named Rajar also remained. Surprisingly -- given that Hafez el Assad belonged to Syria's Alawite minority -- they took on Israeli citizenship and demanded to be kept as part of Israel. Writes Plaut: "Only problem is, Barak in his rush to pursue his Monty Python version of Dunkirk, wants to give Rajar and parts of the Golan over to Lebanon and the Hizbowlers. The Rajarites are outraged and insist they be retained by Israel. It is always nice to know there are a few Zionists left in Israel, although apparently none in the Labor Party."

Sharansky Protests

Natan Sharansky has issued a letter to Prime Minister Barak protesting the transparent tactics by which Barak plans to railroad the next stage in Israel's demise through the cabinet. Although Sharansky does not say so in the letter, the tactics were pioneered by Benjamin Netanyahu in the Wye giveaway of Israeli territory (territory for terror would be a far more accurate description than the conventional territory for peace). Netanyahu appointed his chief critic, Ariel Sharon, foreign minister just prior to Wye, took him along, and Sharon has not had a shred of credibility as a critic of Oslo ever since. Now Sharansky says he sees through Barak's similar maneuver: keep the cabinet in darkness concerning the drastic new giveaways (plus recognition of the Palestinian right to return!), take along to Washington Sharansky and a couple of other cabinet members wary to endorse a peace-of-the-grave, present them with a take-it-or-leave-it "peace" agreement in the glare of world headlights and dare them to walk out. Back in Jerusalem, they, too, will subsequently have no credibility as critics.

Sharansky does well to protest; he would do better to leave the government -- and better still never to have joined.

Outpost               - 2 -               June-July 2000