In Israel, the peace process rests in the hand of the “troika”. With the first meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Barack Obama looming (May 18th, saves the date), the policy Netanyahu brings to the table will have approval of three principal government members – his own, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s.
As the 18th Knesset develops their policy towards the Palestinians and foreign affairs (and yes, it is strange that experienced Israeli politicians enter the government without a clear plan of how they want to approach these things, as if they said, “Wait, there’s a problem here? We have to do something about the Palestinians? Oh, weird.”), we have three distinct characters in charge. There’s Netanyahu, a slippery character who portends to the mantle of Israeli pragmatism that President Obama boasts of, except Obama has done (or tried to do) things from day one, while Netanyahu has dawdled and stalled. There’s Lieberman, the resident attack dog, though hopefully his bark (re: Iran) is worse than his bite (re: Palestinian peace process). And then there’s defense minister Barak.
Barak is a curious case. Popular as a military leader while also leading the left-center Labor party and propounding pro-peace views, his controversial decision to join the current government has left him in a difficult position. He pushed Labor into this coalition either because it was in the country’s interest and desire to join and avoid a narrow right-wing government (his view), or because he couldn’t stand the idea of losing his minister position (the left’s view).
While Barak’s party approved joining the government in a special vote, 5 of his 13 Knesset members threaten to oppose coalition voting, the party of 40+ years is on the verge of disintegration, and it’s unclear whether Barak has any sway in the current government, or whether his party is just the fig leaf left-wing commentators mocked him for becoming.
Still, Barak forges on, eager to present himself as both a cohesive part of the troika and its most peace-minded member. Last week, the Haaretz published an interview with Barak that gives a fascinating look into his mindset and the plans of the broader government. Considering the above link is to the translated, abridged version (a few extra answers and commentary can be found here), and that the press in Israel is not the most noble of public agents, the interview must be read with skepticism for any cheap edits, but there’s plenty of good reading.
The interview begins with Barak presenting Netanyahu as a modern-day Menachem Begin, the right-wing PM who made peace with Egypt in 1979. He then dissolves himself of principal responsibility for Labor’s failure in the past election (the party shrank from 19 to 13 before the current turmoil), and without prompting suggests that he’ll stick around another 17 years and at some point return to power. Never mind whether that would be good for the country or not, or the fact that he already has been prime minister:
“Anyone who is counting on me to disappear – well, I am not going to disappear.”
There’s more political shimmying, as Barak asserts that his vow to enter the opposition after the 2009 election was based on the idea that, “the natural thing would happen and (centrist party) Kadima would join.” Only when Kadima went into the opposition did he find it his duty to join and moderate the government. He condones the reality that Lieberman, under investigation for corruption, has in his party’s control much of the justice and public security offices in the country, a situation Barak quixotically demanded to be changed if he was to join the government.
He then takes the noble high road over comments opposition/Kadima leader Tzipi Livni said about his political opportunism, saying, “I feel sorry for Livni, who was perhaps driven by frustration to make such baseless comments.” And among all this, when asked whether his political maneuvering has hampered his credibility, he says, “That could well be. I feel that I am very credible.”
The preceding suggests a power-hungry, self-assured, inconsistent man (“Napoleonesque” is an epithet often thrown at Barak). Or a politician, in other words. But if his policies lead to peace, so what? Right?
Barak has always stated his support for peace, but when it comes to key issues like the settlements, well,
“…when it comes to 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.”
The interviewer does a good job of pressing him on his failure to dismantle illegal outposts, then asks if he can say “there will be no more illegal outposts in the territories” in the next year. Barak, the Defense Minister in the current and previous government, officially responsible for evacuating settlements, took the following bold stand: “I have no doubt that this government will take up the matter.” Gives the other Barack quite a run for his money.
The irony of Barak’s position is that even when he makes a reasonable statement, pointing out that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is no Hitler, he is completely marginalized. Netanyahu based his Independence Day and Holocaust Day speeches of the end of April around the theme of not allowing Iran to perpetrate a new Holocaust. Barak’s perspective is completely lost.
So in the troika, Lieberman is sure to stoke Netanyahu’s fires, and Barak is sure to try to influence Netanyahu towards more reasonable paths, and Netanyahu is sure to pay minimal attention to both. Next week’s meeting will be deemed a success based on how much Netanyahu faces up to the new reality of an Obama administration that is, at least so far, promising to be tougher on Israel. The key policy argument between the two will be the order of events between dealing with Iran and making peace with the Palestinians.
As the nation and the world await the forthcoming foreign policy declaration from the new Israeli government, it’s becoming clear that Barak’s purpose is already exhausted. His party, in whatever form it remains, offers political breathing room for Netanyahu abroad, and European and American politicians queasy from the Bibi-Lieberman shot can always turn to Barak for a calming chaser of peace talk.
So when that policy comes out, and when Netanyahu presents it to Obama, his own influence will be the strongest. It’s not that Barak won’t have a say: it’s just that when he doesn’t agree, no one will be listening. He either doesn’t notice or doesn’t seem to mind.