Just back from dinner with Ehud Barak

[Lucky]

United Jewish Israel Appeal annual fundraising dinner in Leeds. The Lucky family doesn’t usually bother with these posh affairs, but as the speaker was Ehud Barak we decided to give it a go.

A dinner speech, so I didn’t know how political it would be, but it seemed to me there were two possible alternatives:
1) Israel is facing a desperate situation, needs your support, etc.
2) What the Israeli people want above all is peace, and the present government has failed them. Radical solutions are needed, etc.

It is interesting that the audience was (mostly) typically orthodox and Zionist, yet Barak got a standing ovation before he began. He could have said anything at all, and it occurred to me that, if he were considering contesting the leadership of the Labour Party before the next election, he would give us his campaign speech.

And if anyone’s interested I’ll tell you tomorrow what he actually said, because it’s very late now and my brain’s gone to sleep.

[a_unique_person]

Well, there's not much point in saying you went without telling us what was said.

[davefoc]

I'm interested.

[The Fool]

me three

[Loon]

me four

[Lucky]

Ehud Barak is the most right-wing of the prominent Labour politicians of recent years, and therefore not my preferred leader, but over the last few months I had started to feel that, as the Labour Party seems to have decided to commit suicide, perhaps he would be the most likely person to hold things together, win an election and take the peace process forward. (There have been rumours in the Jewish press that he is considering contesting the Labour leadership.) In his talk last night he came across as highly intelligent, compassionate, and charismatic, and it really would not have taken much to convince me, but in the end I felt he had not done enough.

Of course it was not the place to launch an outright attack on Sharon, but if his policies had been significantly different he would certainly have said so. He didn't talk just about the Israel/Palestine situation, but what he said about it was practically to endorse Sharon's policies (at least, that's my interpretation).

His view of Sharon's disengagement plan: 'it is hesitant, not fully coherent, not fully consistent, but a step in the right direction'.

His own plan (and he didn't explain how it differs from Sharon's):
1) Resist terrorism and complete the security barrier.
2) Remove the isolated settlements (spoke of 'bringing the people back home').
3) Bypass Arafat and negotiate a two-state solution, but he seemed to have pretty well decided on the border, which would retain most or all of the major settlements for Israel (this was a bit vague, though).

He did say some things that Sharon never would. Spoke about 'the immense human tragedy, not just on our side but on the other side, too'. Also: 'the barrier is a response to immediate security needs and must not be used to impose a border; that would be unacceptable'. Defended settlers without defending the settlement policy: 'we should remember that we sent them there, governments from both sides'.

The audience seemed on the whole to be won over, and why wouldn't they be? Sharon's policies with a slightly left-wing slant, from a politician with integrity, charm and international respect (and 15 years younger than Sharon).

On the whole I was rather disappointed, but I must say that spouse and son (similar political views to mine) were a lot more enthusiastic, so perhaps my analysis is too negative.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Lucky

He did say some things that Sharon never would. Spoke about 'the immense human tragedy, not just on our side but on the other side, too'. Also: 'the barrier is a response to immediate security needs and must not be used to impose a border; that would be unacceptable'. Defended settlers without defending the settlement policy: 'we should remember that we sent them there, governments from both sides'.



I had the idea it was just the extremists, but have come to realise it has been exactly what he said, policy from both sides. The question is, why? The extremists, I can understand, it is a pretty simple and clear reason.



The audience seemed on the whole to be won over, and why wouldn't they be? Sharon's policies with a slightly left-wing slant, from a politician with integrity, charm and international respect (and 15 years younger than Sharon).

On the whole I was rather disappointed, but I must say that spouse and son (similar political views to mine) were a lot more enthusiastic, so perhaps my analysis is too negative.

I like to be impressed by a good politician myself, it makes for an entertaining night. But, as you say, a good show is as far as it goes. For leadership of a country, you want more. What was lacking, from what he said, was an actual vision for the future, one that appears to be realistic, and actually acknowledges the suffering and says it was worth it, because 'x' was achieved.

[Lucky]

From a_u_p:
What was lacking, from what he said, was an actual vision for the future, one that appears to be realistic, and actually acknowledges the suffering and says it was worth it, because 'x' was achieved.I think I gave a more negative impression of Barak's speech than I meant to. He did imply that some settlers would have to make sacrifices in order for the peace process to go ahead, but that Israel as a whole should ensure that they don't suffer more than necessary (don't remember his exact words).

I suppose it's difficult for an Israeli politician to put forward any vision other than just an end to the violence, and even more difficult to say that the terrible suffering on both sides has all been for nothing, and will make little or no difference to the eventual peace agreement. Still, he's in a better position than anyone else to say that, and I wish he had.

About the motives of settlers other than extremists: I don't think it's so difficult to understand why economically-disadvantaged people would willingly accept financial inducements to move to the West Bank, especially when this was represented to them as beneficial to Israel. Remember, too, that many of them were recent immigrants, mostly Russian. They didn't have roots elsewhere in Israel, and probably didn't have much understanding of the political implications.

If you mean the governments that encouraged them, I think the problem there has mostly been the disproportionate influence of the extremist parties, due to the unsatisfactory electoral system. Plus, of course, the general short-sightedness of politicians. They seemed not to understand that the policy of creating settlements was in effect just moving the border, and there was no reason to think that this in itself would improve security