Gidi Weitz
http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1082114.html
At 8 P.M. last Thursday, a secretary bearing a tray of small candles entered the office of Ehud Barak in the Kirya, the defense establishment compound in the center of Tel Aviv. She placed the tray on the low glass table in the corner of the office, on which the boss's left leg rested, then turned off the lights. The small flames of the candles flickered in the dark, painting the defense minister's round face in shades of orange and red. It was his small contribution to the effort to save energy on Earth Day. In this intimate atmosphere, Barak was heaping praise on his new partners in the government coalition. "I think that the positions [Foreign Minister Avigdor] Lieberman is articulating behind closed doors are far more balanced and, I would say, more responsible than what some of his [public] declarations suggest," he says.
It will not be surprising if the two of them enter into a conceptual cooperation in the government. Like Lieberman, Barak has stated that a presidential system must be implemented in the country. Barak certainly envies Lieberman for the total control he exercises over his 14 Knesset pawns, which spare him confrontations with wayward types like Labor MKs Eitan Cabel and Shelly Yachimovich.
"Behind Lieberman are hundreds of thousands of voters who gave him 15 Knesset seats," Barak says. "Some of the people who are now with him were formerly my comrades. I served in the army with [Yitzhak] Aharonovitch, Sofa Landver was a member of Labor and Danny Ayalon was my political secretary and I promoted him."
How do you feel about being part of a coalition government with Yisrael Beiteinu?
Barak: "Their people and voters are absolutely fine, and Lieberman is a member of the same government of which I am a member and I respect him now."
What about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whom you once described as frightened and manipulative? How do you find him a decade later?
"I find a more mature person, who understands that we are facing tremendous challenges. I will not say I find him agreeing with me on every detail, but I've found a deep understanding that we have a great responsibility to act—to lead and not be dragged after events."
Is he ready to take the steps that you have said you are willing to take? For example, he has declared that Israel will not return to the 1967 lines or evacuate the Golan Heights.
"Look at what Menachem Begin said in the election campaign [of 1977] and what he did afterward; look at what [Yitzhak] Rabin said [in 1992] and what he did afterward; look at what Bibi [Benjamin] Netanyahu said 12 years ago and what he did afterward. Look at what I said and what I was ready to do. [Former Labor Party leader Amram] Mitzna did not enter the government of Ariel Sharon because Sharon told him that there is no difference between Netzarim [a former Gaza Strip settlement] and Tel Aviv, and look what happened afterward. I say, take only these examples and you will understand that Bibi has a hard choice to make: Does he want to be [Yitzhak] Shamir or Begin?"
And your understanding is that he wants to be Begin?
"Yes. There is deep understanding between us on the need to address the political issue and that it is impossible to leave things in a state of paralysis. If we sink into paralysis, we are liable to find the world losing interest in Israel and in this conflict—or, in an even worse scenario, acceptance by the world that the solution is not two states for two nations, but one state for two nations, which for us is a concrete risk, a slippery slope."
'Stop the hypocrisy'
It is too soon to say how history will judge Ehud Barak, but it is already clear that one title will be his for all time: the person who led the Labor Party to the worst defeat in its history. Certainly he is not solely to blame for the decline of the former ruling party, but the failure is associated with him. One answer to the question of what makes Barak tick can be found in his performance in the immediate aftermath of the elections in February: the amazing ease with which he got to his feet, shook off the dirt and hooked up with the nascent Netanyahu government as though there had never been a defeat.
Why didn't you resign? Aren't you responsible for the party's failure?
"That whole discourse is hypocritical. When I planned to return to the Labor Party in 2005, I was told [by my colleagues]: We can't forgive you for what you did after you lost in 2001, when instead of staying with us and doing everything to help us recover from that blow, after having brought us into power two years earlier—you got up and left. How could you have walked out on us like that? I told them: Stop the hypocrisy; I did the only thing a leader could have done in a direct-election system [which was then in existence but was afterward repealed]. It was my failure; I did not succeed in persuading you that I was right. Later, you went with Sharon, under his skirt, to carry out exactly what I proposed then: to begin a process of unilateral separation [from the Palestinians]. You are hypocrites, because if I had stayed, you would have said: What else has to happen for someone to draw the conclusions and leave?
"Today we see the same hypocrisy, in a mirror image. It's all nonsense. Anyone who wants to challenge me and tell party members 'I am better suited than Barak to lead the party,' is invited to enter the contest when the time comes."
Will you run?
"Yes, I intend to stay."
That is just 12 months away.
"Twelve or 34, what's the difference? I will run. In 2018, I will be the same age at which Sharon created Kadima; in 2026 I will be the age at which [Shimon] Peres ran for the Labor Party leadership for the last time. Anyone who is counting on me to disappear—well, I am not going to disappear. And anyone who wants to run—let him run."
Are you aware of the erosion in your standing? That very possibly you will never be prime minister again?
"I was already prime minister. I have held every post in the country. I am not frightened. I certainly saw the erosion in the public standing of Rabin, I saw the erosion in the public standing of Sharon, I saw Bibi with just 12 seats three years ago. I am not frightened of anything, but I am also not obsessive about anything."
Asked why he entered the government, Barak says that he believed—as he said after his party's defeat, which he does not disavow—that Kadima would be the coalition partner: "It was my assessment and belief that the natural thing would happen and Kadima would join. From the moment that did not happen, you had two levels here: one related to what is right for the country, the other relating to what is right for the Labor Party. In regard to the country, I know the truth: that an absolute majority of the citizens do not want to see a narrow right-wing government. The same holds for an absolute majority of Labor voters. The majority of them cast their ballots for us to be in the government and for me to be minister of defense."
This is the second time in a row that you committed to undertaking a public move and then reneged. You promised to leave the Olmert government after the Winograd Committee report [about the Second Lebanon War], but then stayed. That caused you tremendous damage.
"Possibly; I don't know. A large part of all that was not what I actually said, but the way it was perceived by the public. I accept that in the frenetic public discourse that is conducted here, people don't listen to what you say but look only at the bottom line. What cannot be summed up in three words is not taken in."
Didn't you say explicitly: "I will leave the government after the final report of the Winograd Committee"?
"No, I did not say that. But forget it—I don't want to go back to that, because the fact is that you remember it like that and so do all the country's citizens and it's true that the impression was created that I would resign after the publication of the final report."
Where was your mistake?
"Maybe it's my limitation: I view life in a complex manner, as it really is, and I am not very skilled at simplifying things to the level of a headline. I would have been a bad newspaper or television editor. I see all the complexity and I cannot ignore it; in my opinion, that complexity affects life. I know from my experience that complicated problems are not solved by simplistic means."
Don't you think that because of this limitation you are seen as not credible?
"That could well be. I feel that I am very credible."
But you are a politician in a democracy, so it is very important how you are perceived and not how you feel.
"I admit that I am far from excelling at declamations and statements that are not connected to reality. But I feel I have done the right thing."
'I am a human being'
Last week, Barak stripped Eitan Cabel of his powers as party secretary general. He took this step, he said, because he is unwilling to accept the declaration by five Labor MKs, among them Yachimovich, that they will not agree to coalition discipline, and will vote against the government as they see fit. Earlier, Barak denied that he tried to split his opponents within the party by offering Yachimovich a ministerial portfolio (the Industry and Trade Ministry). Barak: "I did not offer anything. I do not offer what I don't have. I never offered anyone anything that I do not have in hand."
Are you aware of the hatred for you that exists among your natural electorate on the left in the wake of this latest move?
"I am not a commentator and I am not a psychologist of mass behavior, and in the end I am a human being. I will, of course, be happy if everyone loves me, but that has never guided me in life. I grew up in an environment of activity where the relevant question was not if people like you and send you text messages, but whether they are ready to go with you in the dark of night into an environment in which the uncertainty lies not in who will win the Lotto, but who will emerge alive or not."
You said you would enter the government to prevent Lieberman, who is being investigated on suspicion of criminal activity, from gaining control of the law-enforcement agencies. That did not happen. Instead of Daniel Friedmann, the new justice minister is Yaakov Neeman, who is very hostile to the state prosecution. And Lieberman himself showed up like the head honcho at the ceremony in which the new public security minister—who is from his party—took office.
"I don't think it was right, under those circumstances, for Lieberman to attend that ceremony. But what I said is that it would not be proper for Friedmann—who is talented and highly capable, but also with the passion, energy, focus and foaming at the mouth with which he assaulted the institutions of the rule of law—to be justice minister."
But Neeman is no different from him. Friedmann being replaced by him is merely cosmetic. Lieberman still controls the Ministry of Public Security, the Constitution Committee in the Knesset and the committee that appoints judges.
"It is not cosmetic, and Yaakov Neeman follows a moderate path. I entered the government, we are now partners in the same government, and I tell you that in life one deals with practical alternatives, not wishful thinking."
Kadima leader, Tzipi Livni, was sharply critical of your remarks about preserving the rule of law. She said: "The Labor Party chairman? Preserving the law? The man who made his political fortune by raising funds for associations and his private fortune through his political connections?"
"I feel sorry for Livni, who was perhaps driven by frustration to make such baseless comments. In my lifetime I have already seen people who stood on the Knesset rostrum and assailed me with grave remarks [such as Tzachi Hanegbi, who described him in a play on words as 'Ehud barach'—Ehud ran away—in connection with an army debacle], and a few years later came to me at their initiative and said, 'Listen, Ehud, we want to ask for your forgiveness.' Maybe what we have here is another case developing like that."
In the meantime, it appears as though Livni's decision to go into the opposition is taking away the few supporters Labor has left.
"I do not agree. Suppose Netanyahu puts forward a political plan when he visits Washington in a couple of weeks? What do you think he has in mind—four states for six nations, or two states for two nations?"
If that happens, he will get all the credit and Labor will retain its status as a useless appendage. No one gave the Democratic Movement for Change credit when Begin made peace with Egypt.
"It's true that there is sometimes a certain tension between our responsibility to the state and our political interests, but I say: Responsibility to the state comes first. The party does not exist to bring me and my friends into power, but first of all to allow challenges to be met properly. If we implement things that we aspire to do, I won't pretend—obviously, I would want to lead the move. But even if it turns out we are the reason that the opportunity for a regional agreement, which current reality offers, is grabbed—but we don't get the credit—and it is right for the state, it is still right."
Netanyahu is about to visit Washington for a first meeting with President Barack Obama and his administration. Barak will land in the American capital after him, but in advance of the meetings with Obama he has a clear policy message: "Israel needs to present a political initiative, an Israeli plan for a regional settlement that includes peace and cooperation. I think this should be coordinated with the United States and be constructed so that it will, of course, protect our vital interests, security and others, and also ensure Israel's Jewish character and the return of refugees only to the Palestinian state...
"Bibi accepted the Oslo accords at the time. And it is clear that when a political settlement is signed with all the neighbors, the settlement will stipulate a Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel, with the two living side by side. I believe that even now, during Netanyahu's visit to Washington, Israel should come up with a formula about how it intends to move ahead—and that formula will not propose three states for eight nations."
Absurd logic
According to former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, you were a "peace refusenik." Whenever the suggestion was made to evacuate some bit of settler outpost you objected and also immediately extended the building permits in the settlements.
"I do not want to give out grades for accuracy of perception, but that is not correct. Not one new settlement was built in these years."
But you expanded existing settlements.
"First of all, we have nothing against that within the [existing] settlement blocs. We also say to the Americans that we believe—in accordance with a letter from president George W. Bush, too—that they should be part of Israel even in a final-status agreement. In the settlements, in the isolated ones on the other side of the [security] fence, the only things that are happening are expansions that I would say are for natural needs.
"A soldier returns from service in the Golani Brigade to the settlement of Eli and wants to build a home next to his parents. Not to let him do that sounds absurd to me, even if it is clear to us that, in the final-status agreement, it is possible that the isolated settlements will not be part of Israel. There is no logic here. In contrast, when it comes to the illegal outposts, I have no doubt that decisions need to be made about them, not least because Israeli governments over the years have made that commitment to the Americans."
You have been defense minister for the past year and a half. This is within your purview, so why haven't you evacuated them?
"We evacuated four of them, we reached an agreement about Migron and attempts to establish illegal outposts were thwarted, in some places dozens of times."
Is it such a big deal for you to evacuate 26 outposts?
"Look, it's not a big deal. It's something that can be done in the right way at the right time."
But if you do not evacuate them, you are effectively making a broader statement of refusing to make peace.
"The important place is Migron, and we reached an agreement there. We preferred peaceful means, though not because there is no choice, as can be seen in regard to that red or brown house in Hebron. [Then] when it was necessary to evacuate and something interfered with life and was a defiant act against the state's authority over its citizens, we acted efficiently, sharply, quickly and also with far better results."
Can you say that by next Independence Day there will be no more illegal outposts in the territories? Can you not make a commitment even regarding this basic enforcement of the law?
"I have no doubt that this government will take up the matter. I have no doubt that, paradoxically, a center-right government will be called on to take up this matter even more directly—both by the public at home and by the international community. There is no hidden agenda here. I am convinced that this government will have to take a stand, and will do so, on the issue of the illegal settlements—based, indeed, on the duty of the state's citizens to obey the law. I believe we will carry it out. I think that Israel needs to carry out the evacuation of illegal settlements, will be called on to do so and will in fact do so."
You have a broad perspective: Is there a chance that the conflict will end in your lifetime?
"I am certain it is possible and certainly necessary to act with all our might to achieve peace even before I turn 70, which will be in three years. It is not impossible. You have to understand that in their consciousness, the leaders are not so far apart in terms of what the final settlement will look like."
Do you think that a Palestinian leader possessing broad authority could reach a settlement with us within a few months?
"In my opinion, yes."
All the options
"The fact that Gilad Shalit is not with us is definitely a failure of the government of which I was a member for part of the time, even if not from the beginning"—this is as much as Barak is ready to say about the sad case of the abducted soldier. Operation Cast Lead, in contrast, was a great success, he believes. He is not especially fazed by the current debate over the moral standards displayed by the Israeli army in the Gaza operation.
"I was in uniform for decades, and I tell you that there is no more moral army anywhere than the Israel Defense Forces. Operation Cast Lead achieved all the goals that were given to the IDF. It has reestablished deterrence and the conditions to achieve quiet. The IDF went in very sharply, with good intelligence. You could see the fruit of its systematic work in all areas since the Second Lebanon War. When the IDF is finally sent into action, it strikes with forcefully, painfully and with a minimum of casualties. We do not know the scale of the destruction there and we are coping with the reports. There is quiet now, a more effective struggle against the smuggling, and a calm reality that reflects the strength of the deterrence. True, it is not within the context of understandings, but we will have to consider that later."
As for the other urgent security issue—the Iranian nuclear project—Barak does not subscribe to the comparison drawn between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Adolf Hitler.
"I suggest that we do not panic," he says. "Ahmadinejad is a serious phenomenon, but he is not the decision maker in Iran, only the loudest and most colorful voice. From that point of view, he is doing a good service by exposing the essence of this threat. I do not believe that any of the ayatollahs will stop the nuclear project, but at the same time I say that the State of Israel is not European Jewry. We are a strong country to which the whole world attributes nuclear capability, and in regional terms it is a superpower. Israel is more exposed to terrorism in its streets than to direct attempts to destroy it. I admit that I do not like the comparison with the Holocaust, because it cheapens the Holocaust and stretches current challenges beyond their proper place. There is no one that will dare try to destroy Israel."
Are you in favor of talks between the United States and Iran?
"We are not in a position of being able to tell the Americans whether to talk to the Iranians. I told American leaders: First learn from the professionals about what is going on in Iran, what they are doing behind the smokescreen, acquaint yourselves with the intelligence material, and from this you will understand that they are working determinedly to deceive, confuse and blur things, and that under the headline of 'nuclear power for peaceful purposes,' they are striving to achieve military nuclear capability. I told them negotiations should be short and with a deadline, accompanied by 'soft' sanctions—such as limitations on money transfers—while preparing the ground for harsh sanctions that involve authorizing action afterward. This has to be done in deep cooperation with the Russians and the Chinese, and we say that we are not removing any option from the table."
We have a tendency to hope for an heroic operation that will end everything, as with the bombing of the Iraqi reactor in 1981. Is that realistic?
"There is no comparison. In the Iraqi case there was one target which existed and was working, and a surgical method eliminated it. We thought we were delaying the project for three-four years, whereas in practice it was delayed forever. Here we are up against something far more complex, sophisticated and extensive. The Iranians don't play backgammon, they play chess, and in fact they invented the game. They are proceeding with far greater sophistication and are far more methodical. The Iranian nation is a collection of people held together by an identity that includes the perception of being an empire from the dawn of history. Part of their nuclear pretensions have nothing to do with Israel, but with their place in the world and the orient."
In the case of peace with Syria, you belong to the school that believes it is possible, correct?
"Yes."
But are they ready? Can Bashar Assad do what Anwar Sadat did?
"The Syrian order of priorities is different from what we imagine. It begins with ensuring the regime's continuity, goes on to the international tribunal that is investigating the assassination of [former Lebanese prime minister Rafik] Hariri, which might topple the Syrian hierarchy, continues with their special interests in Lebanon and their request to get all kinds of goodies from America, and includes their attempt to postpone the painful but necessary step of severing themselves from Iran. The Golan Heights comes only at the end. Because in the meantime, in the past 40 years, they have managed to maintain quiet in the Golan Heights, but on the other hand also to act via proxies against Israel from Lebanon for decades, in a way that has exacted a high price from us and upset us considerably.
"I think the potential is there and that we have to be attentive to it. I think a settlement could be of much benefit to the entire West. The possibility of removing Syria from the circle of hostility weakens the Iranians, greatly weakens the backing for Hezbollah and the terrorist organizations, and also significantly advances the prospect of a settlement with Lebanon. None of this is impossible. Rabin talked to the Syrians about peace; I was sent as his envoy to meet with the Syrian chief of staff. Peres held talks with them, so did Netanyahu. Netanyahu also understood the meaning of a decision to reach a settlement with Syria. Because the Syrians are insistent on all manner of demands, and we are insistent on security demands, the issue is not simple, but I see it as possessing very significant potential. We must not drop our eye-contact with them. We have to act at the right time, the right moment, to try and pull it off."
In 1995 you entered politics, were interior minister and foreign minister and defeated Netanyahu. That was a successful decade. From 2000 on, you have presided over a series of political debacles. What is your conclusion from all this?
"It's true that I have held every post in the country—not even Rabin held all the positions I have held. Today I am defense minister, a position that fills my whole world. I would be happy if the energy I am now devoting to internal quarrels within Labor were not necessary and if the party were built like Kadima or Likud, but I don't want to go as far as using Yisrael Beiteinu as an example. I am working so that we will return to lead the country and I will be prime minister. And I tell you that for that reason, too, the place I am now in, with all its limitations and problems, is more appropriate for this period."
Begin spent 29 years in the opposition before becoming prime minister, Rabin waited 15 years before being elected prime minister a second time, it took Sharon 18 years to recover from the blow of the Lebanon war. It also took Netanyahu a dozen years to return. Is that the timeline you see for yourself?
"Yes. I told you that in 2026 I will be the same age Peres was when he ran for Labor leader for the last time. Wait for me until 2026 and we'll see if I will be prime minister or not."
---
With kind regards,
Nurit
No comments:
Post a Comment