Israeli media were left debating the latest flare-up in tensions between President Shimon Peres and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud government, after an official statement by the ruling coalition party accused Peres of undermining Israel’s international reputation by publicly coming out in support of Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas’ leadership.
Whilst Netanyahu claimed in an interview with the US Time magazine earlier this year that “the Palestinians will never have a better partner than me” in peace negotiations, Peres is thought to view his Palestinian counterpart as the best chance for Israel to achieve peace with the Palestinians.
English-language daily The Jerusalem Post contended that whilst the role of the President in Israeli politics is a symbolic one and as such previous incumbents of the role have refrained from weighing into party political territory, the summary of the president’s duties enshrined in law does not prohibit him from expressing opinions on significant issues of the day. The newspaper affirms its position by quoting Israel’s first President Chaim Weizmann whom defending himself from criticism by his US counterpart for not publicly speaking out on the plight of Arab refugees, insisting he was “only a constitutional president and it is outside my province. My handkerchief is the only thing I can stick my nose into. Into everything else – it’s [prime minister David] Ben-Gurion’s nose”.
Suggesting that the government “should be lenient with a president’s occasional political comment, particularly when made by a man of Peres’ stature”, The Post insisted in its editorial Monday that as Peres’ experience in the field of diplomacy is second-to-none, his opinion should be taken into consideration and that he has an obligation to express it if he feels “a potentially damaging policy mistake is being made”, contending that any such criticisms of a sitting president “are usually motivated by political considerations”, with Israel’s crucial January 22 elections fast approaching.
Rival daily Ha’aretz put Tuesday however that Peres’ own comments were themselves motivated by political concerns, as he sought to “use his prestige to propose a public alternative to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu”, who according to recent polls carried out in the Jewish State is likely on course for a substantial election victory. However, it continued, as Peres has publicly ruled out standing for further election to office, he has chosen to use his obligation to express his well-known political views for ideological rather than political gain.
Peres’ comments, Ha’aretz contended, were an expression of sentiments “Netanyahu refuses to recognise”, as the paper accused the Premier of evading direct discussions with Abbas, leading Israel on a course that “might lead to disaster”. Netanyahu, it continued has “already wasted four precious years” in government that could have been more wisely employed in bringing the international community on side, instead using Peres’ good standing with foreign leaders “to explain government policy and persuade others to put their faith in him”, as it slammed Likud’s “arrogance” in overlooking his advice and concluding that “for Israel’s sake, it would be wise to listen to Peres”.
Yisrael Hayom took a more cynical view of Peres’ outburst as a political ploy to garner further support for the left-wing “which had served him so well over the years”. Resorting to the rhetoric of peace is an established populist agenda, the daily contended, as well as an ineffective diversion tactic from the pertinent issues at stake.
However, the paper, added, criticism of the president is futile as his opinions now reside on the peripheral fringes of the Israeli political landscape, with even the left-wing opposition Labour party refusing to be drawn on the stalled peace process in the election run-up, and can therefore do very little damage in reality.
This latest diplomatic incident is not the first to have engulfed Peres and the politically diverse government in controversy in recent months, after the President’s televised insistence in August Israel “cannot go it alone” in pre-emptively striking Iran over its contentious nuclear weapons programme prompted criticism from Netanyahu aides that he had “forgotten what the president’s role is”.
Elsewhere, at a July memorial to Zionist pioneer Theodor Herzl, the president provoked uproar by speaking out against continued Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank, insisting that should it continue “it’s doubtful (Israel) would remain Jewish”.
As with previous and subsequent controversies, his comments regarding Israeli settlement policy seem carefully-timed, coming only two days after the Netanyahu-commissioned Levy report into West Bank outposts found that “Israel does not meet the criteria of ‘military occupation’ as defined under international law” in the Fourth Geneva Convention and therefore settlements and outposts established there are legal.