One on One: 'I'm one of the few remaining Zionists'

Yossi Beilin tells the 'Post' about his decision to hang up his parliamentary hat.

By RUTHIE BLUM LEIBOWITZ
beilin nice 248.88 (photo credit: Ariel Jerozolimski)
beilin nice 248.88
(photo credit: Ariel Jerozolimski)
Yossi Beilin apologizes for not being able to offer me anything other than a cup of water. But the "cupboard is bare" at his Knesset office on Sunday, mere hours after the submission of his resignation. "I thought that if I didn't make a change now, I might never make it," says the departing Meretz MK, to explain his retirement from politics, after more than 20 years in one hot seat or another. "It's partly connected to my being 60 - which I see as a kind of milestone." Other factors, he says, also played a role in his decision to quit, among them the sense that his true talents for having an impact on the diplomatic process are better employed elsewhere. Indeed, asserts the left-wing maverick, the bulk of whose political career was spent in the Labor Party, until 2003, when he moved over to what had become a more appropriate home for his ideology: "I don't excel as a parliamentarian." Perhaps not. But, the academic-turned-politician - who has a PhD in political science from Tel Aviv University, and has served as Labor Party spokesman, cabinet secretary, Foreign Ministry director-general, deputy finance minister, deputy foreign minister, economy and planning minister, minister in the Prime Minister's Office, justice minister, religious affairs minister and Meretz chairman - does seem to be at the top of his class when it comes to pushing peace plans, like the Oslo Accords and Geneva Initiative. No wonder, then, that his name is associated with utopianism in some circles, optimism and/ or pragmatism in others, and blackened in still others as synonymous with betrayal. Once referred to as "Shimon Peres's poodle" by the late Yitzhak Rabin, Beilin is no stranger to criticism or confrontation - including, surprisingly, over another baby of his, the "birthright" program. But not only does he take such conflict in stride, he seems to crave it in some way. "When I don't create controversy around what I do, I think something must be wrong," he says, insisting he's not being glib. As for where he's headed now that his boxes are packed, Beilin waxes poetic about his new private enterprise that is already under way: BeiLink, a Herzliya-based consulting firm that will employ former diplomats to facilitate investment, philanthropy and other international dealings between Israelis and counterparts abroad. How does a political animal like you retire from politics? I'm not sure I'm a political animal. And I can leave parliamentary or party politics without leaving public life. What I will do is be more involved with the Geneva Initiative. In December, for instance, both Israeli and Palestinian members of the initiative will fly to meet the transitional US administration to present our ideas. So, I'll still be writing, speaking, giving interviews and being involved. In any case, the question is whether my being a member of Knesset contributes to my ability to impact affairs of state. The honest answer is that it doesn't. I managed to influence political life before I was in the Knesset, and I believe I'll succeed in doing so in the future. My connections don't derive from my being in the Knesset, and my ability to talk to leaders on the Israeli and Palestinian sides will not lessen when I'm no longer here. Nor do I excel as a parliamentarian. The most significant parliamentary success I had was doing away with the direct election of the prime minister. It was a joint law proposed by me and [former Likud MK] Uzi Landau. But in other areas I can't say I was a great lawmaker. Nor did this part of political life really excite me. If it had, perhaps I would have put off leaving. But I feel that I should make way for other people, especially when I look at Dr. Tzvia Greenfield, a wonderful and special person - the first haredi woman to enter the Knesset, and from Meretz, to boot. Anyway, I made my decision to leave some time ago. But I postponed it, because I thought that [Foreign Minister and Kadima head] Tzipi Livni might be able to form a government, in which I might be able to serve as justice minister - to try and repair some of the serious damage Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann has done. When she wasn't able to do so, I immediately announced my retirement. Why? Couldn't she become prime minister after the elections in February, at which time you could vie for the Justice portfolio? It's not that this is even my dream. But I hesitated, due to the havoc wreaked by Friedmann, as a result of which I thought it would be important for me to be justice minister. But I'm not going to wait for the elections and more coalition negotiations. What government do you expect to emerge in three months? I want to see Livni as prime minister, and a coalition of Labor, Meretz and the Arab parties, or at least their support - a government which takes courageous steps vis-a-vis Syria and the Palestinians. Is there any difference between Kadima and Labor today? Yes there is, and it's in Kadima's favor. Kadima today is much more flexible than Labor on political/diplomatic issues. Speaking of diplomacy, you have always been a controversial figure - even to the point of being called a traitor. How does that affect you? It's when I'm part of the consensus that I worry. When there's a controversy surrounding me, I'm in my element. When I don't create controversy around what I do, I think something must be wrong. I see myself as a broker of change. When I fought for "birthright," for example, I had to confront the entire Jewish establishment. Today, most people think birthright is connected to the Jewish Agency, because it's so successful and conservative. That's my victory. And, when [Prime Minister] Ehud Olmert speaks like me today, that's my victory. When Livni speaks like me, it's my victory. When it's hard to talk about any arrangement with the Palestinians involving something other than a two-state solution - with the Geneva Initiative as the reference point - that's my victory. The first controversial thing I put my signature on, so to speak, was the sanctions against South Africa in 1987, when I was Foreign Ministry director-general. I enlisted the entire system against the defense establishment. Ultimately, I persuaded [prime minister] Yitzhak Shamir to do it with me. Because of him, I was able to pass it. Then there was the Oslo process - again going against the tide, without the cooperation or knowledge of the establishment. It was a move that changed the face of the Middle East. Then birthright, as I mentioned, which I began proposing in '94, over which I was almost literally kicked out of every office connected to the Jewish world. I'm going to be publishing a book about this in the near future. Why was there so much opposition to birthright? One reason was that there were many subsidized programs to bring Jewish youth to Israel, and the federations were afraid of competition. They felt that if something similar were offered for free, nobody would go on one of their subsidized trips. Another reason was fear in the Diaspora that Jewish youth would start making aliya, which the communities didn't want. A third reason was that the Jewish Agency didn't want any new programs, since it had its own. And it fought against me on this almost violently. In addition, there were those who said that it can't be that there's poverty in Israel, and we're funding trips for rich American kids. And the philanthropists - even those who ultimately joined the endeavor, such as Charles Bronfman - told me that someone who gets something for free will never appreciate it. It took me from '94 to '98 to persuade the philanthropists. And in '99, when I was a minister in Ehud Barak's government, we succeeded in persuading the government to fund part of the project, and that's when it began to run. I don't think that there's any doubt today that birthright is the most successful Jewish - or Zionist - program of the decade. Then, there was my struggle for the withdrawal from Lebanon, which I began with 18 percent support and ended with 72%. And of course, there's the Geneva Initiative. All of these achievements have a common denominator: In each case, I came with a detailed plan, not merely a concept, and then built up a coalition of supporters - preferably one that crossed party lines. Have you no regrets about either the withdrawal from Lebanon itself, or the way it was carried out, now that it is clear the retreat left Hizbullah free to amass weapons? I would have preferred for it to have been done in the framework of an agreement with Syria, and Barak's biggest mistake was not completing such an agreement at Shepherdstown in January 2000. If he had, there wouldn't have been a need for a unilateral withdrawal. But because he hadn't, there was no choice but to withdraw unilaterally, because remaining in Lebanon for 18 years was insane. Thank God we had the courage to leave. And relatively speaking, it is much quieter since we left. As for the arming of Hizbullah: It certainly is one outcome of the withdrawal's being unilateral. The same applies to Hamas and the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. But the amassing of arms by itself does not cause war. You have to prevent the enemy from using the weapons, but you don't go to war just because the enemy has those weapons. The fact is that today Hizbullah has three times the amount of weapons than it did before, and we're not going to war. We went to war in July 2006, after the kidnapping of the soldiers, didn't we? The war was the result of the kidnappings. But I said at the time something that surprised the public - that we had to hit Syria. Today, people maybe understand better what I meant. In any case, hitting Syria, instead of going to war in Lebanon, would have been more effective, since the Syrians are behind Hizbullah. As we've done in the past, we should have gone after the dispatcher, not the messenger, and not have entered this unnecessary war. It was an optional war, and we took the option. You bemoan the absence of agreements, as though Israel is responsible for it. Yet, what about all the attempts at reaching a treaty with the Palestinians? Barak was ready to withdraw to an approximation of the '67 borders at Camp David, yet Yasser Arafat rejected the offer and waged a suicide-bombing war instead. Responsibility for this is shared by all those present at Camp David. It is true that the Palestinian delegation's behavior was problematic. But neither did the Americans know how to behave, and we, too, made many mistakes. Much has been written about this, including by me. In a nutshell, the technical mistake was that the negotiations began at the leadership level, among leaders who had no idea how to conduct them. Instead, they should have begun on the ministerial level, where the gaps in their positions would be determined. Then each side should have put forth its parameters. Only then should a summit have been held between the leaders. Furthermore, they spent far too long - 15 days - negotiating details, jumping from subject to subject unsystematically. And only after that was the Clinton plan forged, and only after that the Taba talks. If the order had been reversed, it's very possible that we would have reached an agreement in 2000. Do you consider yourself a post-Zionist? On the contrary, I'm one of the few remaining Zionists. The real post-Zionists are the settlers and the Right, who think that we can annex the West Bank and ignore the fact that we don't have a Jewish majority. Whoever here believes we can live without a Jewish majority is giving up on the Jewish state. I'm trying to guarantee a democratic Jewish majority. Can the country really be democratic with an all-powerful Supreme Court? If you ask me, the Supreme Court isn't powerful enough. It operates very much in accordance with the zeitgeist - sometimes too much so. Take, for example, the expulsion of 429 Hamas members in December 1992, which was a terrible mistake, because it only served to strengthen Hamas. The Supreme Court determined that there could be no collective expulsion - only individual ones, based on criteria such as the severity of the crimes they committed. In so doing, the court gave legitimacy to the expulsion of 429 as though it was on an individual basis. The Supreme Court also lives with the settlements, which, in my opinion, are illegal in every respect. This is why I think that presenting it as though it's a "Meretz court" - or an especially powerful one - is laughable. Nor do I think it intervenes enough when it should. Speaking of intervention, what's your take on the economy and the global financial crisis? I'm a social democrat, or a social liberal. I think the free market is the only relevant meeting of supply and demand. But it can't, by itself, manage the economy for us. There are so many market failures and problems created that there has to be some collective body - society or the state - that assists those who are unable to play the market game. There has to be societal responsibility and a safety net in the relevant areas: pensions, health, housing and education. In these areas, regulation is necessary, even when it's not pleasant or convenient. I'm glad that we didn't complete deregulation, because if we had done so, we would have found ourselves subjected to the current fluctuations, as the United States and other countries are. This is why I'm happy we're not a carbon copy of the US. Apropos not being a carbon copy of the US, do you think there is more corruption here than there used to be, or is it merely more exposed? There are many more rules and regulations governing politicians' behavior, and much more transparency. So, when there is a violation, it is exposed, making it appear that there is more corruption. A lot of practices that used to be taken for granted are now forbidden. Take political appointments, for example. It was taken for granted that elected officials appointed their loyalists. But then we decided - and it's good that we did - that this is not appropriate, desirable or legal. So, anyone who continued doing it was perceived as a criminal. There are many other examples, such as the issue of gifts or frequent flyer miles. In the past, everybody kept his miles. Once it was decided that this was not legal, anybody who kept his miles - either because he wasn't paying attention, or because he hadn't come to terms with the law - became a violator of the law. As a result, we get the impression that everybody is corrupt. I am happy that there are restrictions that didn't used to be in place, and I think this is a transitional period between a time when everything was allowed to a time when much of it no longer is, and many politicians haven't quite internalized that. Do you think, then, that Olmert is the victim of a witch hunt? No, but I do believe that there are things he thought he was allowed to do that have been forbidden for a long time now - which doesn't clear him of responsibility. Now that you've cleaned out your office, where are you headed? To Herzliya, where I am setting up offices for the company I'm establishing - called BeiLink. I've had a long-standing dream - since I was director-general of the Foreign Ministry in 1986, and since I was deputy foreign minister in 1992 - to form a kind of complementary foreign office, and hire retired diplomats. I used to watch 65-year-olds, who spoke several languages, and had lots of knowledge and experience, working in the archives part-time to supplement their pensions. My dream was to set up such an office to provide services in areas such as business and philanthropy, for Israelis needing assistance with the market abroad and for foreigners interested in such assistance in Israel and elsewhere. And now it's happening. I'm really looking forward to the next chapter of my life.