I am amazed that even someone as intelligent and informed as Professor Cole has bought into the Grand Myth of "Peres the Peacemaker".
In fact throughout both his tenures as prime minister he was explicitly opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian state. For example, in an interview with the Newsweek editors in 1995, Peres responded with a "resounding 'No'" when asked whether a Palestinian state would ever be established.
The first Israeli government which went on record with formally supporting a Palestinian state was in fact the Netanyahu government which succeeded Peres in the late 1990s.
And it is curious to see the claim that AFTER Peres left "war criminals" took over, since this assertion flies in the face of such blatant war crimes committed with Peres as prime minister as the Iron Fist operations in occupied Lebanon in the 1980s and Operation Grapes of Wrath in occupied Lebanon in 1996 (involving the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of people and the deliberate massacre of 100 refugees). It is also notable that the "decent man" was the President of Israel during the Cast Lead massacre, which he supported, bitterly attacking the Goldstone report.
The Israeli journal Davar reported that the Rabin-Peres Labor government of the early 1990s "has helped [the settlements] financially even more than the Shamir government had ever done", enlarging them "everywhere in the West Bank, even in the most provocative spots".
The claim that the Oslo Peace process was meant to lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state flies in the face of the fact that the text of the Oslo agreement makes no reference whatsoever to a Palestinian right to national self-determination -- a fact which is furthermore very difficult to reconcile with the claim that it had occurred to Rabin that it would be "implausible" to keep Palestinians forever stateless. If you substitute the word "stateless" for "bantustan-less", the remark would be more on target.
In fact, the "dedicated Socialist" never changed his basic position that "The past is immutable and the Bible is the decisive document in determining the fate of our land".
Prof. Cole, I am a big fan of yours, but on this point you are grossly misinformed.
"the legal status of UNGA 181 is clear-cut"
as observed by unscop minority report: "a study of chapter xii of the united nations charter leaves no room for doubt that unless and until the mandatory power negotiates a trusteeship agreement in accordance with article 79 and presents it to the general assembly for approval, neither the general assembly nor any other organ of the united nations is competent to entertain, still less to recommend or enforce, any solution with regard to a mandated territory." this britain did not do. see para 1 of art 80.
"The launching of the rockets by Hamas is a war crime..."
This is a highly contestable view. Citing standard textbooks on international law, Norman Finkelstein observes that "International law does not—at any rate, not yet—prohibit belligerent reprisals."
He notes furter:
"...in its landmark 1996 advisory opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons, the ICJ ruled that international law is not settled on the right of a state to use nuclear weapons when its “survival” is at stake. But, if a state might have the right to use nuclear weapons when its survival is at stake, then surely a people struggling for self-determination has the right to use makeshift projectiles when it has been subjected to slow death by a protracted blockade and recurrent massacres by a state determined to maintain its occupation."
© 2026 All Rights Reserved
I am amazed that even someone as intelligent and informed as Professor Cole has bought into the Grand Myth of "Peres the Peacemaker".
In fact throughout both his tenures as prime minister he was explicitly opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian state. For example, in an interview with the Newsweek editors in 1995, Peres responded with a "resounding 'No'" when asked whether a Palestinian state would ever be established.
The first Israeli government which went on record with formally supporting a Palestinian state was in fact the Netanyahu government which succeeded Peres in the late 1990s.
And it is curious to see the claim that AFTER Peres left "war criminals" took over, since this assertion flies in the face of such blatant war crimes committed with Peres as prime minister as the Iron Fist operations in occupied Lebanon in the 1980s and Operation Grapes of Wrath in occupied Lebanon in 1996 (involving the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of people and the deliberate massacre of 100 refugees). It is also notable that the "decent man" was the President of Israel during the Cast Lead massacre, which he supported, bitterly attacking the Goldstone report.
The Israeli journal Davar reported that the Rabin-Peres Labor government of the early 1990s "has helped [the settlements] financially even more than the Shamir government had ever done", enlarging them "everywhere in the West Bank, even in the most provocative spots".
The claim that the Oslo Peace process was meant to lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state flies in the face of the fact that the text of the Oslo agreement makes no reference whatsoever to a Palestinian right to national self-determination -- a fact which is furthermore very difficult to reconcile with the claim that it had occurred to Rabin that it would be "implausible" to keep Palestinians forever stateless. If you substitute the word "stateless" for "bantustan-less", the remark would be more on target.
In fact, the "dedicated Socialist" never changed his basic position that "The past is immutable and the Bible is the decisive document in determining the fate of our land".
Prof. Cole, I am a big fan of yours, but on this point you are grossly misinformed.
"the legal status of UNGA 181 is clear-cut"
as observed by unscop minority report: "a study of chapter xii of the united nations charter leaves no room for doubt that unless and until the mandatory power negotiates a trusteeship agreement in accordance with article 79 and presents it to the general assembly for approval, neither the general assembly nor any other organ of the united nations is competent to entertain, still less to recommend or enforce, any solution with regard to a mandated territory." this britain did not do. see para 1 of art 80.
Unlike nukes.
"The launching of the rockets by Hamas is a war crime..."
This is a highly contestable view. Citing standard textbooks on international law, Norman Finkelstein observes that "International law does not—at any rate, not yet—prohibit belligerent reprisals."
He notes furter:
"...in its landmark 1996 advisory opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons, the ICJ ruled that international law is not settled on the right of a state to use nuclear weapons when its “survival” is at stake. But, if a state might have the right to use nuclear weapons when its survival is at stake, then surely a people struggling for self-determination has the right to use makeshift projectiles when it has been subjected to slow death by a protracted blockade and recurrent massacres by a state determined to maintain its occupation."