What is the point of excoriating Shimon Peres as the architect of Oslo; what is the point of holding him responsible for the murder of so many Jews—what is the point of doing this year after year when the very nature of Israel’s parliamentary electoral system entrenches him in office and guarantees more of the same?

Who besides fools do not know that Shimon Peres is not only poltroon but a collaborator with Israel’s enemies, above all Yasser Arafat—whom he continues to defend to this day despite the 10,000 casualties Israel has suffered since Oslo?

Merely to denounce Peres without condemning the political system that keeps this Catiline in office is to be guilty not only of ignorance, but of obscuring and therefore hindering the remedy: parliamentary electoral reform.

I have said countless times that protest demonstrations, unless they have the positive goal of basic reform of Israel’s governing institutions, are futile as well as a waste of human and financial resources that could be put to better or more constructive use. We have had demonstrations against the policy of “territory for peace” since Camp David 1978—all in vain. It matters not which party or which prime minister is in power: the policy of retreat remains the same. Why? It is NOT because of American pressure! Oslo was contrived by Shimon Peres without the knowledge of the United States!

Oslo was Peres’ payoff for the Arab vote in the 1992 national elections! Oslo was not a diplomatic blunder. The Labor Party needed the Arab vote because its electoral base among Jews had shriveled up, thanks largely to the high birthrate of religious Jews who voted Right. Labor’s future looked bleak indeed. Something had to be done, else Peres’ party would evaporate.

A clue to Labor’s salvation will be found in the writings of Shimon Peres’ mentor, the late Professor Yehoshafat Harkabi. Harkabi, a former head of Israel Military Intelligence, referred to himself as a “Machiavellian dove.” What does this mean? It means that Harkabi—and this applies to Shimon Peres—pursued the policy of “territory for peace” to gain POWER by means of the Arab vote. Mr. Peres’ talk—now echoed by Sharon—that ruling over the Arabs in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza is contrary to democracy has always been sheer drivel. Intoning the shibboleths of “peace” and “democracy” has been nothing more than a facade to gain power.

Ironically, Oslo could never have happened were it not for the undemocratic character of Israel’s system of government, in which members of the Knesset, and those who become cabinet ministers, are not individually accountable to the voters in regional or multi-district elections.

This should be the target of demonstrations. Too many demonstrations, no matter how noble the intentions of their organizers and participants, unwittingly aid the enemies of the Jewish people by distracting them from the one thing needful: basic reform of Israel's governing institutions.