The Perils of a Palestinian State By: The Jerusalem Summit www.JerusalemSummit.com The following is a chillingly accurate prediction made three decades ago, by none other than Israeli politician Shimon Peres 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 25,000 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, pg. 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 entitled 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 to 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 down 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’s interest? And if it cannot, what conclusions should be drawn?