The Disappointing Trajectory of Amir Peretz

December 15, 2005 11:26 AM

The Disappointing Trajectory of Amir Peretz Amir Peretz is a leading candidate for the next Israeli Prime Minister. Does he have what it takes to make a difference? Many think he might, others are not so sure.
posted by mk1gti (6 comments total)

Can he possibly be a downgrade from Sharon?
posted by wakko at 12:00 PM on December 15, 2005

Well, it looks more hopeful than Sharon. I was intrigued that he and other non-western jews were initially sent to settlements near the territories, with the result that non european jews voted more hard core conservative for military protection from palestinians.
posted by mk1gti at 12:10 PM on December 15, 2005

How much of a say would he have though if Sharon were to remain in power, even if a coalition government were to be formed? The author sems to have tempered his hopes rather severely in other areas as well.
posted by wakko at 12:16 PM on December 15, 2005

Ilan Pappe is disappointed in him? That's probably worth 3 more seats right there.
posted by boaz at 12:54 PM on December 15, 2005

But no less likely is a scenario in which Sharon aligns himself with right-wing parties with whom he can agree on continuing a restricted evacuation of isolated settlements in the West Bank so as to keep Israel in the convenient position in which it now finds itself: prolonging an occupation that gets more oppressive by the day while pretending to be deeply engaged in a peace process.

*changes channel*

I mean, seriously, the entire landscape of Israeli politics has undergone a major tectonic shift and all this joker can come up with is "Sharon is bad" and "Peretz isn't leftist enough"? Give me a fucking break.

I had a very distressing argument just after the disengagement with a couple of visiting Germans. They were doing the usual Christian European conscience tourism: visiting the West Bank, eating humus in Ramallah, pissing on the wall, etc etc. I tried to explain to them how Sharon, despite his past rhetoric, had done the demographic math and made a strategic decision to disengage. And how this decision was not political, but pragmatic. And how, at the root of things, this was why Israel has no future in the territories. Despite all evidence to the contrary, they insisted that Sharon couldn't be trusted and that he'd never let go of the West Bank.

Isn't there a good definition of ideology that says it's the ability to continue believing in something even in the absence of evidence? The extreme left has gotten so comfortable with their lachrymose narrative that they're no longer able to see the world for what it is. Israel's occupation is coming to a close. Sharon has sacrificed the Likud to make that happen. If there's to be "justice" or "peace" in the future, that will have as much to do with Palestinian responses to the disengagement as it will to do with Israeli governmental policy.

I simply cannot conceive how any person of goodwill can see the end of the occupation as anything other than a positive step forward.
posted by felix betachat at 2:04 AM on December 16, 2005

There has never been an "occupation." There has been a defensive holding of captured territories. Now that the depravity of the Mideast Islamic world is collapsing onto itself, Israel can consider leaving those territories (at least some; sorry Yasser /RIP).

Peretz a leading candidate?! Only in the way Howard Dean was once a leading candidate.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:57 AM on December 16, 2005