“In the Middle East a pessimist is an optimist with experience,” said former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak to an audience of nearly a thousand [UPDATE: Examiner says “about 2,500″] at the Indiana University auditorium, where he delivered a speech on the war on terror last night.

Ehud Barak at the press conference before his speech.

The Speech

Barak began by discussing the Arab-Israeli conflict as something that’s given Israel a special perspective: “Israel is a microcosm of the world,” he said, noting “terror has been a part of our lives for a long time.”
He addressed the recent conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, declaring “I believe Hezbollah lost a lot of fighters and faced major infrastructure damage.” He did not, however, discuss whether Israel had made any missteps in the war, and in an earlier press conference had sidestepped questions on the issue.
Barak contextualized the role of Syria and Iran in the Israel-Lebanon War and other Middle East conflicts. Of Iran, Barak joked, “listen to Ahmadinejad — he talks about erasing Israel from the map — What [do] you expect us to do?” The audience replied with laughter and applause. Syria, he added: “is basically a proxy of Iran.”
The former prime minister had a generally negative outlook on the situation in Iraq. “The country gradually deteriorates to civil war [and] the US presence is more and more a part of the problem and not the solution,” he said, adding that “Democratization may lead to a radical Shi’a government.”

The thousands-large crowd at Barak’s speech.

Question Time

Having finished his speech, Barak opened up the floor to questions. About 12 questions were asked, some provocative, some curious, and some that were simply rants and not questions at all.
One student said his speech “was unfair” and that “Israel invades whoever it wants.” This received applause from a small group in the audience. It was soon followed by loud booing throughout the crowd, which stopped when Barak interjected, “It’s OK to think different ways.” This received thunderous applause, after which he continued, “I try to be fair; I don’t pretend to be objective — I’m not sitting in heaven — I fully recognize the right of the Iranians and the Syrians to pursue happiness and express themselves as long as it doesn’t interfere with the rights of other nations.” This received further applause.
Another student asked why Israel condemned Iran’s nuclear program but refused to release any details of its own program. He replied that he was not in a position to give details on its nuclear program, but opined that Israel would not be the one to introduce nuclear warfare to the Middle East.
One student asked him why Israel doesn’t try non-violent resistance to terrorism. He was surprised and bewildered by this suggestion: “War only needs one active side, peace needs two,” he said, asserting “It takes two — peace is like tango.”

Barak delivering his speech before thousands of students.

Student Response

Among the students I spoke with, the general consensus was that it was a great speech. “I liked the question and answer part best, because he answered the questions even when they were adversarial,” said graduate student Merv Matthew. Alvin Rosenfeld, Professor of English and Jewish Studies, said “[It was a] powerful speech and it’s what’s needed.”
Anti-Zionist student Lindsey Krantz said she respects Barak but completely disagrees with him. “Palestinians are being brutalized and ghettoized,” said Krantz, adding “the difference between violence and terrorism is subjective.”

Hillel co-sponsored the event. From left to right: Zach Miller-Frankel, Rebecca Frazin, and Joanna Blotner (IU’s Hillel President)

Concluding Thoughts

Barak’s speech was well received, even by many of his critics. He took a big risk in putting himself out there to answer the mindful and not so mindful rants of IU students. However, I think he lost some credibility by refusing to criticize Israel in any way whatsoever. Overall, though, there’s one thing that Zionists and even anti-Zionists can agree on: the speech described the Israeli view, and also served to encourage and improve the dialogue on the Middle East conflict and the war on terror.