Barak bidding Knesset farewell

JERUSALEM – Israel’s Defence Minister Ehud Barak announced his retirement from politics on Monday.

In charge of what is arguably Israel’s most challenging ministerial portfolio since 2007, Barak is widely viewed as the man who knows Israel’s plans on Iran better than anybody else.

“My decision to resign stems from my desire to dedicate more time to my family,” he said. He will remain in his post until after the January 22 election.

Barak, Israel’s most decorated soldier, declared at a press conference that his passion never lay in politics, saying: “There are many ways to contribute to the state, not only through politics.” He also commented: “Fifty-three years ago, in November 1959, I enlisted to the IDF and for 47 years, I have served the people of Israel to the best of my ability.”

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed “personal appreciation” for his work, saying: “We have known each other operationally for many decades. I am familiar with your great contribution to the IDF and the security of Israel, and your contribution in the government, in both counsel and action, on matters that are very important to the security of Israeli citizens and the state. Therefore, I would like to thank you.”

Barak is a long-time Labour Party member who, since the 2009 election, angered the party with his friendly attitude towards Likud and his allegedly autocratic leadership. Last year, pre-empting a revolt by Labour MPs, he broke away from Labour, forming his own party, Independence.

Since elections were announced for January 22, there has been doubt as to whether his new party would get enough votes to enter the Knesset, and when he made his announcement, it was only just scraping the threshold in the polls. This prompted speculation that his retirement is a move to avoid the embarrassment of failing to win a Knesset seat – though he has denied this.

He did not rule out the possibility that he may return as defence minister co-opted by the next prime minister without a Knesset seat – a scenario permitted by Israeli law.

Despite Barak’s schism with his former party, Labour leader Shelly Yachimovich voiced regret at his decision, saying that he has “contributed more to the IDF and Israel’s defence than what the public has ever known”. Politicians in the political centre also expressed appreciation. The centrist Yesh Atid party led by Yair Lapid thanked him for “his years-long service of the state, its security and defence”.

But the political fringes were happy to see the back of him. Some in the peace camp regarded him as a left-winger who abandoned his ideology and propagated a cynical view of the possibility of a Palestinian-Israeli agreement. This view is based on the fact that he failed to secure an agreement at Camp David and that he coined the phrase “no partner “ – a reference to his fear that the Palestinian Authority is not a partner for negotiations.

Zehava Gal-On, chairwoman of the dovish Meretz Party, told The AJN that she believes Barak caused “damage” to Israel and “failed the peace camp”.

Meanwhile, the hard right claimed that Barak, whose signature as defence minister was needed on all building orders for settlements, has been too left wing, citing actions such as the evacuation of Jewish homes in the West Bank which lacked building permits. Referring to his resignation, Arye Eldad, MP for the National Union Party, told The AJN: “I was sorry he didn’t do it a long time ago.”

Barak’s close associate Einat Wilf, an MP with his Independence faction, hit back at the criticism, saying: “The outbreaks of jubilation on the extreme right following Barak’s announcement of his retirement are testimony to the depth of his influence and that of the party in the government and the manner in which he waged battle daily to ensure that Israel’s strategic interests were not hijacked by extreme and irresponsible groups.

“On the other end of the political spectrum, the left continued to blame Barak for the failure of peace; rather than coming to terms with the possibility that the conflict with the Arab world is deep and perhaps irreconcilable, they preferred to shoot the messenger and keep holding on to their illusions.”

NATHAN JEFFAY