10 — THE JEWISH CHRONICLE JANUARY 20, 2010
Globe Barak quits Labor
Is his departure a political betrayal or precursor to something bigger? BY LESLIE SUSSER JTA
JERUSALEM — Was it an act of political self-preservation, a feat of political destruction or a bid to stabilize Israel’s government ahead of some dramatic move? And for Israel’s Labor Party, was it another sign of the once-leading party’s demise, or a precursor to a revival and the ideals for which it stands? What’s certain is that Defense Minister Ehud Barak’s decision this week to quit Labor, which he had headed until Monday, has sent shock waves throughout the Israeli political establishment. Ironically, the split of Labor — until this week a part of the Israeli government but now in the opposition — may yet strengthen the coalition of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Barak’s decision to quit Labor and found a new political party along with four other Labor defectors leaves Netanyahu with eight fewer members in his coalition, but the 66 who remain are considered far more stable than the 74 he had pre-defection. Before Barak’s dramatic announcement, Labor was threatening to withdraw all 13 of its Knesset members unless Netanyahu could show real progress in peacemaking with the Palestinians. That would have left the prime minister
Photo by Abir Sultan/Flash90
Defense Minister Ehud Barak announcing his intention to quit the Labor Party he heads to form a new faction, Atzmaut called (Independence), Jan. 17.
with only 61 coalition members, the vast majority right-wingers and the minimum necessary to stay prime minister in the 120-seat Knesset. Such a narrow coalition would have opened up Netanyahu to harsh domestic and international criticism for leading a perceived hard-line government. Now, in what appears to have been a coordinated move, Netanyahu and Barak
have pulled the rug out from under the feet of their opponents. With a more stable coalition, Netanyahu almost certainly has secured a full term in office, until 2013. Barak pre-empted attempts to oust him as Labor leader and force him to leave the Defense Ministry by cutting a deal in which he can stay on as defense minister after leaving Labor. Many Israelis on the left and right viewed Barak’s move with deep skepticism. The new party he heads, called Atzmaut, which means Independence, has a hazy future other than the assurance of four ministerial berths in Netanyahu’s government and the chairmanship of a Knesset committee. The leader of Israel’s opposition, Kadima Party leader Tzipi Livni, called it the “dirtiest and ugliest maneuver” in Israel’s political history. Her own party was a breakaway from Likud in November 2005, when then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon led an exodus of moderates, including Livni, from the Likud. The regional implications of the upgraded Netanyahu-Barak partnership could be far reaching. It would appear that the peace process with the Palestinians is over, as the more dovish members of Netanyahu’s coalition have exited. Even if Netanyahu wanted to cut a deal with the Palestinians, his remaining coalition partners
likely would block it. Barak and Netanyahu, however, put a much different gloss on things. Until now, the Palestinians had been hoping for the Israeli government to fall and be replaced by one more amenable to their demands, representatives of the two men argue, and this has kept the Palestinians away from serious peace talks. Now, with a more stable government, the Palestinians will see this is who they have to deal with for the foreseeable future and may become more serious about returning to the negotiating table. Furthermore, Netanyahu and Barak confidants have been dropping broad hints that a new Israeli peace initiative is in the offing, suggesting that this is the part of a the Netanyahu-Barak understanding. There is another theory for Barak’s move: that Netanyahu is seriously contemplating a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear installations and believes he needs Barak at his side. According to this line of thinking, with the Labor Party threatening to force Barak to leave the government, Netanyahu could have found himself with a new defense minister who was less inclined to attack Iran. The front-runner would have been the Likud’s Moshe (Boogie) Yaalon, a superhawk on the Palestinian issue but very cautious about striking Iran.
Proposal to probe Israeli rights groups prompts fierce criticism BY LESLIE SUSSER JTA
JERUSALEM — Knesset legislation calling for an investigation of Israeli human rights groups has sparked a fierce argument over who is doing more to hurt Israel’s reputation: human rights organizations critical of the Israeli government and army, or the politicians who want to inves-
tigate them for allegedly going too far. Israeli President Shimon Peres called on the Knesset to reject proposed legislation that establishes a committee to investigate the funding of left-leaning human rights groups. By a vote of 47-16, the Knesset earlier this month gave preliminary passage to the measure. The parliamentary panel would probe the funding and activities of
left-wing and human rights organizations and NGOs. “The investigation of organizations and foundations, whether from the left or right, must be left to law enforcement authorities,” Peres said in a statement Monday. “They possess expertise, are objective and hold the appropriate investigative tools. The establishment of such a parliamentary investigative committee harms Israeli democracy and is unnecessary.” Peres quoted Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, who said that politicians should not be judges and judges should not be politicians. Peres in an address to the Knesset next week is expected to raise this issue, as well as the subjects of racism and incitement by fundamentalist rabbis, The Jerusalem Post reported, citing the president’s spokeswoman. Nevertheless one co-sponsor of the bill, Faina Kirshenbaum of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu Party, charges that the groups are working under the guise of human rights advocacy to discredit the Israel Defense Forces’ presence in the West Bank, criminalize its soldiers and encourage draft-dodging — with the overall aim of weakening the IDF and delegitimizing Israel. “These groups provided material to the Goldstone commission and are behind indictments lodged against Israeli officers and officials around the world,” Kirshenbaum declared during a Knesset debate, referring to the U.N.-en-
dorsed Goldstone report on the Gaza war, which among its findings included allegations of war crimes violations by Israel. The heavy vote in favor of the legislation reflected widespread concern in Israel at the activities of human rights groups, some of which receive foreign government funds and whose goals seem potentially inimical to the national interest. Much of the subsequent criticism was directed at the choice of mechanism to deal with the issue: a parliamentary committee in which politicians would be interrogating their political opponents. After days of criticism for the “undemocratic” nature of the proposed investigatory committee, Lieberman invited cameras into the normally closed party caucus meeting Monday to show he had no intention of backing down. In his remarks, he suggested that Israel’s delegitimizers rely on the subversive work of Israel’s Haaretz daily newspaper; Yesh Din, a group that monitors the rule of law in the West Bank; and Yesh Gvul, an organization that defends Israeli soldiers who refuse to serve in the West Bank. He called the organizations “collaborators in terror.” “There wasn’t a single meeting abroad where I spoke about delegitimization of Israel and people didn’t say look at what Haaretz wrote or what Yesh Din, Yesh Gvul or Yesh Batich published,” he said, the last name a derogatory play on words meaning “There is Zero.”