“The face of the generation is like the face of a dog, and there is no truth,” says the Talmud.There are several interpretation of this saying. One goes like this: “The face of thegenerations” means its leaders. And why does it look like a dog? Because a dog runs ahead, as ifit were leading the master. But when it comes to a parting of the way, the dog waits for the masterto decide where to go. Then it runs ahead again.
The most shocking fact published after the Camp David summit was that Ehud Barak received adaily report on public opinion polls while he was there. His man in Jerusalem conducted a pollevery morning and transmitted the results to his secluded master every evening on the “hotline” that was reserved solely for urgent security messages. Then, according to the resultsof the poll, Barak planned the next day’s negotiations with Clinton and Arafat.
Barak likes to compare himself to David Ben-Gurion. If this comparison were valid, historywould have looked something like this:
On May 13, 1948, Ben-Gurion ordered his pollster to conduct an urgent poll on the question: “Doyou think that the establishment of the Jewish state should be declared tomorrow? Yes/No”.
At the time it was clear that the declaration would be followed by the entry of the Arab armiesinto the country from all sides, and that a total war for the very existence of the Jewishcommunity would break out. It was also clear that the United States firmly rejected theproclamation of the state. In the United Nations, a plan for placing the country under aninternational trusteeship was discussed. Important Zionist leaders, such as Moshe Sharettand Nachum Goldman, proposed postponing the declaration to a more opportune moment.
Therefore, the results of the poll did not come as a surprise: 63% answered that the stateshould not be declared on the morrow, 34% were in favor of the declaration, the rest (3%) had noopinion.
Ben-Gurion concluded that the declaration would be unpopular. As a canny politician, hedecided not to make it. And so the State of Israel did not come into being on May 14, 1948…
But Ben-Gurion was no Barak. It did not enter his mind to conduct a poll. The very idea would haveshocked him. He was aware of his responsibility as a leader, took the decision and implementedit. The whole Jewish community rallied behind him.
Nowadays, opinions differ on many of Ben-Gurion’s acts. (At the time, I was one of his mostsevere critics.) But there is no disagreement on one point: the man was a leader. He had the gutsto take fateful decisions. He did not ask himself: “What do the people want this morning” but,rather: “What must be done for the good of the people?”
More than once, when he made unpopular decisions, he told the people: This is my opinion. If youdon’t like it, I shall resign. Every time the people accepted his view. For example: When hedecided to accept the partition of the country, when he accepted German reparations and whenhe sold arms to Germany, only a few years after the holocaust.
But Barak is no second Ben-Gurion. Far from it. The method of “government by opinion-poll” isas anti-Ben-Gurionic as you can get. It looks democratic. Indeed, it looks like the veryepitome of democracy. The leader asks the people every day what they want and actsaccordingly. What could be more democratic? But in actual fact, it has nothing to do withdemocracy.
Polls are based on false basic assumptions: that the majority of people are able to understandwhat is going on; that they have the information necessary for the comprehension of allaspects of a proposed decision; that they are glued to the media, and that the media are givingthem a real, objective and full picture; that they are able to voice a considered opinionmerely by answering the few questions in a poll. All these assumptions are completelyunfounded.
A very good example was provided this week by a poll commissioned – of all people – by thesettlers. A representative sample of the Jewish population in Israel was asked about the”concessions” attributed (rightly or wrongly) to Barak at Camp David. The results were asfollows: 55% oppose the evacuation of some tens of thousands of settlers from isolatedsettlements, even if the bulk of the settlers will remain where they are under Israelisovereignty; 66% oppose transferring the Jordan valley to Palestinian sovereignty; 69%oppose to the return of even 100 thousand refugees; 76% oppose Palestinian rule over EastJerusalem.
A clear picture? Not at all. Because, in the end, the decisive question was asked: Do you agreeto a final settlement that includes all these concessions? And here came the surprise: Morethan 50% said “yes”. If one adds the votes of the Arab citizens of Israel, who where not asked,there is a solid majority of 55% for a peace agreement that includes all these concessions.
How come? Simple: Each “concession” by itself arouses opposition. But when placed in thecontext of putting an end to the historic conflict, the public is ready for all theseconcessions – and more.
This poll, too, like all the polls, does not provide reliable answers. The real decisions canonly be rendered once a written agreement is achieved and a public debate has taken place. Forthis to happen, Barak must make courageous decisions concerning Jerusalem, the Green Line,exchange of territories and refugees. There will probably be a big majority against”concessions ” on each of these issues by itself in the daily polls. But the final outcome – theagreement that will contain all the “concessions” as all the achievements of both sides – willbe endorsed by a big majority.
This is leadership on the Ben-Gurion model, a leadership that does not bear any resemblance toa dog that runs ahead while looking backwards.