IMRA: The Jerusalem Summit has launched an ad campaign on Israeli news
websites featuring the tease line: "Shimon Peres Prophet". The line leads
to the following:

www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/peres/peres_eng.htm

The following is a chillingly accurate prediction made three decades ago, by
none other than Shimon Peres, the nation's newly elected president. In it he
foresaw, in precise detail, the dire perils that would result if Israel were
to embark on precisely the policy he himself championed and which continues
to advocate with passion:

"The establishment of such a [Palestinian] state means the inflow of
combat-ready Palestinian forces (more than 25,800 men under arms) into Judea
and Samaria; this force, together with the local youth, will double itself
in a short time. It will not be short of weapons or other [military]
equipment, and in a short space of time, an infrastructure for waging war
will be set up in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip. Israel will have
problems in preserving day-to-day security, which may drive the country into
war, or undermine the morale of its citizens. In time of war, the frontiers
of the Palestinian state will constitute an excellent staging point for
mobile forces to mount attacks on infrastructure installations vital for
Israel's existence, to impede the freedom of action of the Israeli air-force
in the skies over Israel, and to cause bloodshed among the population. in
areas adjacent to the frontier-line."
Shimon Peres, Tomorrow is Now,
Jerusalem: Keter, 1978, p. 232,

Questions and Quandaries for the Concerned Citizen

- The citizens of Israel, indeed the Jewish people as a whole, deserve,
indeed should demand, an explanation for this dramatic shift in Peres's
position - from total opposition to a Palestinian state to total support for
it. Of course one is entitles to change one's mind and Peres may indeed
have had a change of mind. However one cannot but wonder:

- Why any rational individual would wish to change his/her mind from a
position which proved to be so well-founded to one that proved to be so
unfounded?

- What could have possibly induced Peres to endorse a policy which he
previously rejected as too perilous to the security of the nation -
especially as all the perils he predicted did in fact materialize?

- Why would any responsible leader urge his people downs a path that he
himself warned was disastrous - especially as all the disasters he warned of
did indeed occur?

- How can such conduct be reconciled with a genuine concern for the nation
interest?

- And if it cannot, what conclusion should be drawn?