Peretz's first test

Amir Peretz's conduct of the Labor Party's affairs and his relations with those around him have started to generate criticism within the party all too quickly. Since his election, Peretz has awakened hopes that the new spirit with which he has infused the political system would help to change it. But some of his steps are already threatening to undermine these hopes.

Despite his shoulder-slapping and his broad smile, he has given many of his colleagues the feeling that he is not involving them in this all-important issue of possible change. First and foremost among these is Ehud Barak, who is considering dropping out of the race for a slot on the party's Knesset slate. And others on the party's current slate are saying - whether to Peretz's face or behind his back - that they are also thinking of quitting, or even of joining Ariel Sharon's party.

Some of these gripes can be attributed to rivalry, personal ambition and unfulfilled expectations on the part of certain Labor members, and are no worse than what is frequently found in the upper ranks of every party. But Peretz also has a tendency, which is familiar from his past in the Histadrut, to run a "one-man show." He must wean himself of this tendency. He should study the history of Barak, who lost much of his reputation and his influence in the party due to behavior known in the army as "sociomatic." Benjamin Netanyahu also fell victim to self-destruction, due, among other things, to that same type of egotism at the top.

But it seems that Peretz's main mistake has been in his judgment about the essence of the campaign for control of the government. On the morning of his victory, the political views that he elaborated were straight to the point: He spoke of the urgent need for negotiations with the Palestinians in order to reach an agreement, and even outlined some of its parameters. Immediately thereafter, he took care to circumscribe the extent of his concessions via two parameters accepted by most of the public: He rejected a Palestinian "right of return" to Israel and the redivision of Jerusalem.

These policy lines are sufficiently flexible to enable Labor to present the voter with practical and realistic proposals - both for opening bilateral negotiations and for implementing further unilateral moves in the West Bank; both for leading a governing coalition and for being an active and influential partner in a coalition led by Sharon.

But since these declarations, Peretz has fallen silent with regard to the conflict. It seems as if he has become a prisoner of his own propaganda - namely, that his "social agenda" will decide the elections. He must understand that even a person who is convinced by the force of his socioeconomic arguments will nevertheless demand, and rightly, that he prove that he is fit to be prime minister.

A candidate fit to lead either a party or the country does not necessarily have to boast a rich political or military past. But anyone who is seeking the public's confidence in order to reach the national leadership must first demonstrate good judgment in managing his party and choosing his colleagues. Barak is an asset to Labor. With his accumulated experience and the lessons that he has learned from his mistakes, it is not unreasonable for him to expect Peretz to know how to make use of his abilities. The two of them must find a way to cooperate for the sake of presenting a worthy governmental alternative.