Protestors Express Disapproval of Barak's Policies as Prime Minister

By Brendan Marten
Stanford Daily
Thursday, October 17, 2002

Holding signs and lit candles, demonstrators held a protest yesterday evening as former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak addressed a maximum-capacity audience in Memorial Auditorium.

The protestors expressed their discontent with Barak's past policies concerning the Middle East peace process. Approximately 50 individuals from various groups throughout the Bay Area gathered outside the auditorium. Groups involved included the Stanford organization Coalition for Justice in Israel/Palestine, as well as A Jewish Voice for Peace and Global Exchange.

Joel Beinin, a professor of Middle East History, discussed the specific significance of A Jewish Voice for Peace's protest against Barak.

"It is very important to have a Jewish voice say that we want the [Israeli] occupation to end," Beinin said. "We think the occupation is the principle source of the problem.

"We don't think Barak's offer [at Camp David in July 2000] was a generous offer, and we don't think the extreme repressive measures that he used in response to the Palestinian uprisings were helpful."

Ilana Hairston, a fifth-year neuroscience graduate student and participant in the protest, explained that the demonstrators did not oppose Barak's right to visit the University.

"We are happy to have Ehud Barak speak on campus, as it gives us a good opportunity to raise our concerns about the escalating violence in Palestine and Israel," Hairston said. "We believe Ehud Barak is largely responsible for the current situation in Palestine, as he was prime minister when the Intifada broke out."

Robert Lipton '81, a research scientist from UC-Berkeley and active member of A Jewish Voice for Peace, stated his objections to Barak's handling of the peace negotiations.

"The problem is that Barak was claiming that he made a generous offer to the Palestinians at the Camp David negotiations of 2000," Lipton said. "Everyone is functioning under this myth of the generous offer, and that is simply not the case . . . It turns out that he and the United States offered an ultimatum to the Palestinian people. It was not treated as a negotiation; it was dumped on the table by Barak, and they said take it or leave."

Hairston seconded Lipton's sentiments.

"The famed 'generous offer' which he touts is a travesty," Hairston said. "The maps that were finally shown to the public reveal a system of enclaves surrounded by areas of Israeli control, akin to the system of bantustans developed in South Africa during the apartheid [regime]."

Lipton explained that Yasser Arafat was also justified in refusing to negotiate at Camp David based on the shortcomings of Barak's offer.

"It left Palestinians far short of a viable state," Lipton continued. "The question of Jerusalem was not properly discussed, and the question of refugees was not properly discussed.

"If they accepted the offer, the Palestinians would not have control of their own water rights, air space, or their borders. Every border would be controlled by Israel -- this is not a real state."

Junior Lizzi Heydemann, president of the Jewish Leadership Council of Hillel, explained that "individuals within the Jewish community have varying stances on Camp David. But Hillel's political stance includes, without question, that a democratic and Jewish Israel exist in the Middle East with secure and recognized borders."

Stanford Israel Alliance Co-President Tali Golan pointed out that protestors should look at the greater significance of Camp David.

"The technical aspects or the details of what were offered at Camp David are not the real issue," Golan said. "The real issue is that Arafat refused a historic proposal. No prime minister has gone this far in making sacrifices for his country, and the fact that Arafat refused to even take this proposal as a basis for negotiation shows he is not a partner for peace."

Josh Saidoff, Class of '02, underscored the opportunity that Arafat missed by refusing Barak's offer at Camp David.

"I think, unequivocally, the blame for the failure at Camp David is Arafat," Saidoff said. "I absolutely feel that had Arafat genuinely intended to resolve the issue in the manner prescribed by the Oslo Accords, and had he intended for there to be a two-state solution, that he could have had it."

Though the ASSU Speakers Bureau sponsored the Barak speech in conjunction with Hillel, ASSU Senate Chair Bo Cowgill, a senior, explained that the ASSU has no official stance on the arguments regarding Barak's policies.

"The ASSU is not for or against the protesting," Cowgill said. "We are for Stanford students raising their voices on anything. It is all about expression and dialogue -- as long as it is peaceful, it is fine."