Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Treason, according to Webster’s Dictionary, is “The offense of … betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power; disloyalty; treachery.” Limited to its definition as disloyalty or treachery, treason has long been respectable in Israel, as respectable as Shimon Peres, Israel’s Foreign Minister. Thus, while in Germany, Mr. Peres criticized his government’s decision to eliminate Salah Shehadeh, a mass murderer. Why didn’t Prime Minister Sharon dismiss him? Is it because this would topple his national unity government? But with the Labor Party divided and discredited, new elections would surely result in an overwhelming Likud victory.
Actually, there is precedence for Sharon’s failure to dismiss Peres. Let us go back to 1989 when Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir headed a national unity government. Peres then served as Finance Minister.
During a summer session of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, MK Uzzi Landau (Likud) raised the subject of Shimon Peres' activities abroad. Said Landau: "Peres is starting once more to conduct an independent foreign policy, as he did in the previous government" (MA'ARIV 8/1/89). Without cabinet approval, Mr. Peres met in Europe with Soviet Middle East "roving ambassador" Gennady Terasov, who had just met with PLO chief Yasser Arafat. Evidently Terasov was acting as an intermediary between Peres and Arafat in what is known as "proximity talks." These talks served to circumvent a 1986 law prohibiting Israelis from meeting with members of the PLO.
Mr. Landau wanted to know whether Foreign Minister Moshe Arens had been informed about the Peres-Terasov meeting. Arens replied that he is opposed to such meetings, but that by the time he had protested to Prime Minister Shamir, the unauthorized tete-a-tete had taken place.
A related objection was raised against certain public statements by Deputy Finance Minister Yossi Beilin. Known as Peres' poodle, Mr Beilin had repeatedly called for direct talks with the PLO, thereby undermining the government's negotiating position vis-a-vis the United States on this issue. Mr. Shamir declared that he would confront Peres about these statements. (Nothing happened.)
Turn, now, to a heated exchange between Prime Minister Shamir and Yossi Sarid. Reacting to Mr. Shamir's denunciation of politicians who undermine the efforts of the government to prevent the establishment of a "Palestinian" state, Sarid shouted: "I hear you talking about traitors and defeatists. In which country is it heard that a prime minister speaks in such a manner about publicly elected personalities who are his political rivals, calling them traitors?"
To this Mr. Shamir responded: "I see documents and from them I learn that there are those amongst us who talk about peace but practice treason. I know very well how to distinguish between opponents and traitors”(ibid.).
Shamir's reference to "documents" is most revealing. Clearly, he was alluding not to newspaper reports of political statements made by various leftists, but rather to intelligence reports ascribing to them certain clandestine and treasonable activities, reports furnished by the Mossad.
Now, if Mr. Shamir had documentary evidence showing that various cabinet ministers and/or Knesset members were guilty of treasonable activity, it was his duty to bring this evidence to the attention of the Attorney-General. And if the evidence so warranted, the accused should have been indicted for treason against the State of Israel. No such indictments were issued.
What conclusions may be drawn from this treacherous state of affairs (with no end in sight)? The conclusions are painfully obvious. The government of Israel is not based on the rule of law so much as on the rule of men. Abuse of power on the one hand, and failure to uphold the law on the other, is the norm of political life in Israel.
We are dealing here with men of questionable loyalty to the State of Israel, as well as with men who have the power but lack the courage or rectitude to protect Israel from treachery. These men thrive under Israel’s system of multi-party cabinet government, a system that not only fosters political egotism, but also enables Israel’s enemies to play the game of divide and conquer.
To clinch the point, in the same Shamir government, the Labor Party submitted to a vote of the cabinet a 10-point plan proposed by Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, a plan that would eventuate in a Palestinian state. Prime Minister Shamir had enough presence of mind to remark how incredible it is that Israel has cabinet ministers who actually represent foreign governments!
But no less incredible is the fact that Mr. Shamir never used his legal authority to dismiss any member of his cabinet, even though he claimed to possess documentary evidence that one or more of them were guilty of treason!
Is it any wonder that Shimon Peres continues to represent PLO chief Yasser Arafat?