Israeli Labor Party Chairman and former PM Shimon Peres, intimated last week during a speech he gave in Washington that Israel had no moral claim to the land [West bank] or to Gaza, and must give up every inch of these territories.

Such statements, while not all too novel from Peres, despite the increased boldness, remain ironic just the same, when considering that Peres, his labor party, and the governments he served, all actively maintained the ’67 occupation of Palestinian areas, and successfully engineered the illegal Israeli settlement movement on them.

Peres, who has served in various Israeli governments over the last 30 years, received much prominence as the instrumental Foreign Minister in the Rabin government between ’92 and ’95, which embarked on the famous Oslo Accords with the PLO. Peres, had also served as PM from ’84 to ’86 assuming power after forming a national unity government with the Likud, and again in ’95, following Rabin’s assassination. Though with less fanfare, Peres joined the National Unity government headed by Sharon in 2001-2, to serve his third tenure as foreign minister.

Peres’ rhetoric is difficult to reconcile with his political record all throughout his career. While Peres was gaining a “dovish” reputation talking about peace during the Oslo Accord years, Israel’s settlement activity concurrently saw an almost 50% increase in number, from 96,158 in June 1992 to 145,000 in June 1996.

Furthermore, in ’93, Peres was among the first to advocate the checkpoint policy, which effectively began the curtailment of movement for Palestinians. During Barak’s tenure as Labor party head, the Separation Wall was first envisioned, Peres could not be heard opposing it. Peres couldn’t be heard talking about peace and the end of occupation at all when he joined Sharon’s unity government; in fact he acted to legitimate Sharon’s radical policies.

As Peres is not part of the current government his latest statements have no executive effect, they do however have the effect of causing a sort of confusion over the existing spectrum on the matter in the Israeli political establishment. Seemingly expanding Israel’s political gambit at this embarrassing time, when it actually continues to follow its fixed path of expansion unaffected.

Wittingly or not, Peres is providing Sharon and his government with a sort of shield, helping to deflect the focus off Israel’s traditional settlement policy, at a time where the international community has been increasingly realizing the detrimental ramifications of it.

Peres’s frequent invocation of morality and other ideals, when talking about the principles guiding his politics and that of the state of Israel has brought him much admiration and attention. His effective use of such a morally loaded language has given him a distinctive perception and made him represent the best of the Israel political establishment, the original and real Zionist.

Peres’ statements while commendable in principle, ought to receive as much scrutiny as they do salutation. His “dovish” reputation has so far spared him from such a scrutiny, which could reveal an evident contradiction between his rhetoric and his actions when in power.

Peres’ rhetoric hasn’t changed much over the years, and neither has the expanding settlement activity in the Palestinian occupied territories.