Israel’s Labour Party (almost) Chooses a New Leader
Yesterday’s first round of voting in the Israeli Labour Party’s primaries failed to produce a new leader. No candidate received the necessary 40% of the votes cast and a second ballot will now take place on June 11th between the top two candidates Ehud Barak and Ami Ayalon. It is Ayalon who probably represents the hope for a better Labour, and a better future, including a revived peace process. To find out more, read on...
The results in the first round in which 65% of the party’s 103,568 members participated were as follows:
Ehud Barak – 35.6%
Ami Ayalon – 30.6%
Amir Peretz – 22.4%
Ophir Pines-Paz – 8%
Danny Yatom – 2.7%
The head to head between Barak and Ayalon hardly offers two dramatic and radical competing visions for the Israeli future. Both come from a military background and both have been cautious in their messaging not to over-rock the boat, but there are real differences. Barak has been running on a ticket of experience, having already served as Prime Minister from 1999 to 2001. He claims to be a safe pair of hands to lead the country in a time of war, which is an unfortunate indication of where he intends to take the region. Ayalon has marketed himself as Mr. Clean, suggesting that he represents a new style of politics that stands in contrast to the scandal-ridden current leadership. Ayalon has never held Ministerial office and this is being used against him. Ayalon’s counter-argument is that Barak may have reached the pinnacle of the political pyramid, but that he was a failed Prime Minister.
Barak is in many ways the father of unilateralism, having promoted the “no-partner” narrative following his electoral defeat to Ariel Sharon in February 2001. Ayalon largely rejected the unilateral mantra and notably launched a political initiative together with Palestinian professor, author, and activist Sari Nusseibeh, in which they produced a 6 point set of principles for Israeli-Palestinian peace, around which they then gathered the signatures of members of the Israeli and Palestinian publics. The Ayalon-Nusseibeh principles are quite decent and realistic and you can read them here. In general, Ami is being seen as the candidate who could most breathe new hope and life into the prospects for peace.
There are also differences in their respective approaches to the current government and to serving in a coalition under Ehud Olmert. Barak has stated that he is willing to join the government, but would seek agreement on a date for new general elections. This would allow a new Olmert-Barak formation to avoid an immediate coalition crisis, even though the promised election date would create somewhat of a sort of damocles situation. Ayalon, following the harsh report of the Winograd Commission into last summer’s Lebanon war, went on record that he would not enter a government led by Olmert. Ayalon has said that he is not opposed to being in a coalition with Kadima, but they would have to choose a new party leader other than Olmert. This currently appears unrealistic and it is a weak point in the Ayalon candidacy as most Labour members have little enthusiasm for collapsing the coalition and thus, precipitating early general elections. Of course both Barak and Ayalon could find a face saving formula if it comes to the political crunch and their positions on this political question are likely to be further prodded and tested for the duration of the primaries campaign.
Ironically, Amir Peretz having been ousted as King, now finds himself in the position of King-maker. The support of the Peretz party machine would probably be enough to push either Barak or Ayalon over the top in their run-off. Peretz has a deep seated hostility to Barak and the elitism he represents and he is leaning towards Ayalon. But the final word has not yet been spoken on this and Israeli politics makes for a specially strange bedfellows.
In the bigger electoral picture, according to the polls, Ayalon poses a great threat to Likud leader Netanyahu. This was largely born out by yesterday’s primary first round results. Barak’s main support came from vote contractors and the support he received amongst the old guard of the party machine, as well as amongst the Arab and Druze communities – all of which are largely irrelevant to the Labour Party when it comes to general elections. Ayalon, by contrast, polled well, where the election was genuine and genuinely competitive and where Labour needs to grow its strength in the general elections, notably in the large cities (Ayalon won Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Haifa).
The Israeli Labour Party has a pronounced cannibalistic streak and tends to devour its own, especially promising new leaders. Barak would likely survive, but it is unlikely he will achieve much beyond that should he win the second round. If Ayalon is to succeed not only in two weeks, but also in repositioning Labour to be a driving force in Israeli politics, then he will need to build on the courage and daring which we have seen fleeting glimpses of to date.












When Barak becomes prime minister again, he will go to Taba and say "OK, where were we before we got rudely interrupted?"
When pigs fly, that is.
May 29, 2007 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barak's characterization is unfair. Sharon started unilitral solutions and not Barak. What Barak will do if elected is a prediction and not a fact. And so on.
Ayalon is a better leader from my perspective and not because his agreement with Sari Nusseibeh who doesn't represent anyone. To remind everyone, peace takes two sides and the current Hamas will take 20-30 years to turn the corner (the time it took Arafat to pretend to change).
May 29, 2007 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Levy
In the absence of unilateralism wouldn't Israel still be in both Lebanon and Gaza?
Daniel A. Greenbaum
May 30, 2007 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel - What purpose is served by unilateral decisions rather than negotiations? In both Gaza and Lebanon it seems to me that a more permanent withdrawal might have been achieved with negotiations. Prior to Barak ordering the withdrawal there was talk of a possible agreement with Lebanon on stationing their army on the border. I heard Barak wanted Hezbollah disarmament(a no go in Lebanon) but at least the army being able to move into South Lebanon and the border might have prevented last summer's war.
Similarly, a negotiated turnover of Gaza might have strengthen Abbas enough that he could have avoided the Hamas strengthening and resulting crisis in Gaza. Obviously, it is possible to only speculate about the "might have beens" but so far unilateral doesn't look so good for either the US or Israel.
May 30, 2007 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is a negotiated result necessary?t seems that the Arabs got what they wanted but then made a hash of it. As a result their apologists came up with a new issue that it was not negotiated but done unilaterally. What evidence is there that there ever would have been a negotiated withdrawal? Would you prefer Israel still in Lebanon and Gaza as "negotiations" go on and on?
Unilateralism looks very good from Israel's point of view as opposed to still being in Gaza and Lebanon. Their economy is growing and acts of terror inside Israel have been greatly reduced.
As for the U.S., it should leave Iraq without a negotiated settlement? The U.S. will be there for generations on that basis.
This strikes me as one more way to blame Israel for the incompetnece and ineptitude of the Arabs and their leaders.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
May 30, 2007 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder about pretend.
If it were a pretence , seems to me he'd have had some pretty strong motivation to issue a renewed "call to arms" during his lengthy final illness. If only for the sake of his place in Palestinian history .
Naturally it's easy , maybe necessary , to demonize your enemy , particularly when you see innocent non combatents murdered by a suicide bomb . Or an air strike .
Not to say that there aren't demons who richly deserve the title. But maybe , also , that characterization sometimes lingers when the
actual character has changed .
Just maybe both Sharon and Arafat at the end of their lives weren't exactly the same people they'd been decades before.
May 30, 2007 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
When will Mr. Levy condemn disgraceful push today by the British university
professor union's to boycott the same academics in Israel that I'm sure agree with Mr. Levy on how to end the conflict?
May 31, 2007 3:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
emet: It's not just the UK that is pushing for a boycott of Israel. South African trade unions are doing the same, as mentioned in an article in Haaretz.
Who better to understand the injustices against the Palestinians than the South Africans?Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb
May 31, 2007 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
TPMCafe contributor Todd Gitlin has condemned the UCU boycott.
May 31, 2007 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink