Showing posts with label Ehud Barak. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ehud Barak. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 26, 2020

Israel’s Flight Under Fire from South Lebanon 20 Years On - by Prof. Efraim Karsh and Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen

Israel’s May 2000 rushed evacuation of its security zone in south Lebanon and the desertion of its longstanding local allies there tarnished the Jewish State’s deterrent posture and helped spark a string of large-scale armed confrontations with Hezbollah (2006), the PLO (the so-called “al-Aqsa Intifada”), and Hamas (2008/9, 2012, 2014). The withdrawal transformed south Lebanon into an ineradicable terror entity that can harass northern Israel at will and expedited Hezbollah’s evolvement into a formidable military power armed with 150,000 rockets and missiles capable of reaching anywhere in Israel. It also dented the IDF’s fighting ethos and operational competence, as illustrated by its lukewarm performance during the Second Lebanon War (2006) and Operation Protective Edge (2014).

Prof. Efraim Karsh and Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen..
BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 1,577..
22 May '20..
Link: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/israels-south-lebanon-withdrawal/

In the dead of night on May 24, 2000, 18 years after invading Lebanon with the expressed goal of removing the longstanding terrorist threat to its northern towns and villages, Israel hurriedly vacated its self-proclaimed security zone in south Lebanon and redeployed on the other side of the border. With PM Ehud Barak authorizing the operation a day earlier to avoid its disruption by the Hezbollah terror organization, which had long harassed the Israeli forces in Lebanon, the evacuation was executed without a single casualty.

Yet the humiliation attending the IDF’s flight under Hezbollah fire, leaving behind heavy weapons and military equipment (some of which were promptly bombed by the Israeli air force to deny them to Hezbollah), as well as its abandonment of the South Lebanon Army (SLA), which had aided its counterterrorist operations for years and which collapsed upon the withdrawal with many of its fighters and their families seeking asylum in Israel, was not lost on outside observers. A prominent leftwing Israeli journalist, by no means hostile to the withdrawal, even compared “the scent of humiliation [that] permeated the air” to that attending the “last helicopter on the [US] embassy roof in Vietnam.”

Shattered deterrence

Keenly aware of these disturbing images, Barak quickly extolled the flight as a glowing success that in one fell swoop ended Israel’s “18-year Lebanese tragedy” and neutralized Hezbollah’s terrorist threat to the Galilee. “To fight against terrorism is like fighting mosquitoes,” he told Time Magazine:

You can chase them one by one, but it’s not very cost-effective. The more profound approach is to drain the swamp. So we are draining the swamp [by leaving Lebanon] … Once we are within Israel, defending ourselves from within our borders, the Lebanese government and the Syrian government are responsible to make sure that no one will dare hit Israeli civilians or armed forces within Israel. Any violation of this might become an act of war, and it will be treated accordingly. I don’t recommend to anyone to try us once we are inside Israel.

This buoyant prognosis couldn’t be further from the truth. Far from draining Hezbollah’s “terrorist marsh,” the withdrawal served to expand it to gargantuan proportions. Hezbollah exploited the demise of Israel’s security zone to transform south Lebanon into an ineradicable military stronghold crisscrossed with fortified defenses, both above ground and in a complex underground tunnel system, designed to serve as a springboard for terror attacks on Israeli territory, to shelter Hezbollah’s burgeoning rocket and missile arsenal (which quickly doubled after the withdrawal from 7,000 to 14,000), and to exact a high cost from attacking forces in the event of a general conflagration. Hence the IDF’s inconclusive ground operations in the Second Lebanon War (July 12-August 14, 2006), which hardly ventured more than a few miles from the border during the 34 days of fighting—in stark contrast to the 1982 invasion, which swiftly swept across this area and reached Beirut within five days. And hence the war’s relatively high human toll: 164 fatalities, or 70% of those killed in the security zone during the 15 years preceding the 2000 withdrawal.

Nor did Barak’s warning against any attempt “to try us once we are inside Israel” (or, for that matter, FM David Levy’s threat that “Lebanon will burn” in the event of terror attacks from its territory) make an impression on Hezbollah. With Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah famously deriding Israel as “weaker than a spider web,” the organization launched repeated attacks on targets in northern Israel at a rate of half-a-dozen per year. These began as early as October 7, 2000—a mere four months after the withdrawal—with the abduction of three IDF soldiers on a border patrol (who, it later transpired, were killed in the attack), culminating in the July 12, 2006 abduction of two more soldiers (who, too, were killed in the process) and the killing of another three in a cross-border raid that triggered the Second Lebanon War. During that war, Hezbollah fired some 4,000 rockets and missiles on Israeli towns and villages—the largest attack on the Jewish State’s population centers since the 1948 War of Independence—killing 45 civilians, inflicting massive destruction and economic damage, and driving thousands of Israelis to flee their homes to the southern parts of the country.

While the Israeli architects of the war, which was censured by an official commission of enquiry as “a great and grave blunder,” sought to portray it as a shining success that led to a prolonged period of calm, the conflagration did not deter Hezbollah from sporadic attacks on Israeli targets in subsequent years or from substantially expanding its military buildup in flagrant violation of Security Council Resolution 1701, which had ended the war. This included the expansion of its already substantial rocket/missile holdings to a monstrous 150,000-strong arsenal and the deployment of thousands of well-armed and battle-hardened fighters in south Lebanon on a constant state of alert to invade Israel en masse, either directly or via offensive underground tunnels penetrating Israeli territory (some of which were destroyed by the IDF in 2019).

Even the postwar relative lull has had less to do with the Lebanon War’s deterrent effect (though Nasrallah later admitted he would have foregone the soldiers’ abduction had he known it would lead to full-scale war) than with Hezbollah’s decade-long immersion in the Syrian civil war and the reluctance of its Iranian patron to unleash its protégé’s full might absent a direct Israeli attack on its nuclear weapons installations. Had PM Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak’s purported intention to launch such an attack in 2010-11 not been nipped in the bud by their security establishment and the Obama administration, an all-out Hezbollah-Israel war would likely have ensued. As it is, such a conflagration remains a distinct possibility, with Hezbollah’s security threat via both its rocket/missile arsenal, which can hit any part of the Jewish State, and ability to invade Israel and occupy Israeli localities infinitely greater than it was in May 2000.

Sparking the Palestinian war of terror

Defending his Lebanon decision 20 years later, Barak argued that the withdrawal improved Israel’s military position vis-à-vis the Palestinians since the IDF’s continued presence in Lebanon would have seriously constrained its ability to launch Operation Defensive Shield (April 2002), which curbed the Palestinian war of terror (euphemized as “the al-Aqsa Intifada”) that had begun a year-and-a-half earlier.

As with his claim that the Lebanon flight neutralized Hezbollah’s terrorist threat, this assertion is not only false but the inverse of the truth: had the humiliating Lebanon flight not occurred, the “al-Aqsa Intifada” might not have ensued in the first place, at least not on its unprecedented massive scale.

Tuesday, July 30, 2019

Question: Where is our apology, Barak? - by Helen Nesser Assad

...we do not need Barak's request for forgiveness, nor are we interested in one. Our friends and brothers, veterans of the IDF and defense establishment, who unlike Barak, did not abandon us, continue to accompany us in our struggles and our difficulties and have done so since that fateful day. Their friendship will not compensate for the crime, but it at least shows us that there are those in this country who are decent and moral and no less importantly, people of conscience.

Helen Nesser Assad..
Israel Hayom..
29 July '19..
Link: https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/where-is-our-apology-barak/

Israel Democratic Party leader Ehud Barak apologized last week for the deaths of 13 Israeli Arabs during the riots of October 2000, which marked the outbreak of the Second Intifada. He was prime minister at the time. There are quite a few people who are willing to be moved by this, even though they understand this is nothing more than a stunt, a transparent ploy to garner votes ahead of the September election.

I am not moved by this apology; in fact I find it infuriating. I can only speak for myself, but I believe quite a few of my brothers and sisters in the South Lebanon Army community in Israel are now asking themselves: Where is our apology?

I am a bereaved daughter and sister. Quite a few Israelis, mainly IDF officers and senior defense system officials who dealt with southern Lebanon within their framework of their service, know my family as the "dynasty of death." My father, four of my brothers and two of my nephews were killed in that terrible war in South Lebanon. My brothers were wearing South Lebanon Army uniforms when they fell in battle. I was recently recognized by the Defense Ministry as a bereaved sister.

I have lived in Israel since the 1990s. I built a life in Haifa, established a family and sent my sons to serve in the military. I do not regret this. As the daughter of a South Lebanon Army family, I continue to believe in the historic alliance between the Israel Defense Forces and the South Lebanon Army. I also believe that there is more to this alliance than security interests. We are joined together by common values, a shared war ethic, and I also believe, a shared destiny. Those who have not fought shoulder to shoulder, and those who were not there and did not witness this comradeship with their own eyes cannot understand the significance of this alliance. I remember, as a girl, my parents hosting IDF soldiers, officers, and sometimes very senior IDF officers, in their home. We treated them like family, no less.

Who would have thought that the day would come when this alliance would be violated? We never guessed the day would come when the IDF would abandon southern Lebanon without preparing us in advance. There were those who somehow succeeded in gathering some of their possessions and their family and taking them across the border. The rest were abandoned to their fate, meaning to Hezbollah. It seems to me a majority of Israelis can imagine the bloodbath that ensued.

Sunday, July 14, 2019

The proposition that he, Saint Ehud, will be Israel’s splendid seraphic savior. I’m not buying. by David M. Weinberg

His violent discourse disqualifies him from leading this country again, not to mention his pillaging of Jerusalem.

Cartoon of Ehud Barak:
 Roni Gordon, Israel Hayom
David M. Weinberg..
A Citadel Defending Zion..
12 July '19..
Link: https://www.davidmweinberg.com/2019/07/12/ehud-baraks-bluster-and-plunder/

Former prime minister Ehud Barak’s truculent and self-serving brand of politics is the last thing that Israel needs today. No thank you.

Barak is promoting his political comeback with near-messianic zeal, preening self-confidence, sky-high arrogance, and the most violent political language heard in this country in decades.

In dozens of speeches across the country and in aggressive social media posts, Barak has been savaging Prime Minister Netanyahu and anybody to the right of him as “dark and dangerous ultra-nationalists who are undermining the foundations of Zionism and Israeli democracy.”

Barak talks madly about the “shattering of Israeli democracy” (– nonsense, Israeli democracy is robust!), and the “darkest days Israel has known” (– another absurd claim).

Worst of all is his frequent use of the “f” and “a” words – fascism and apartheid – to describe the policies of his conservative opponents.

In one speech I heard, Barak hurled the epithet “fascist” at Netanyahu three times and “apartheid” at right-wing West Bank policies another three times. He then accused all Israelis to his political right of wearing Nazi-style “selection eyeglasses” (mishkefei selectzia shel hayamin) – which is a disgusting political slur whether used by an anti-Semitic non-Jew or a born-again wannabe Israeli leader.

Barak delivers all this dreadful demagoguery alongside incessant use of the epithet “messianic” in describing policies of the right wing. This, of course, is supremely ironic, since the only messianism that exists in abundance in Ehud Barak’s presence is his own messianic self-assurance.

Barak’s wild exaggerations and exceedingly belligerent characterizations are shocking. His vehement denigration of others and unrestrained use of near anti-Semitic and pseudo-BDS language about Israel and Netanyahu is unacceptable.

In fact, Barak’s demonizing language is the type of speech that would undermine any democracy. In other words, Barak is guilty of the accusations he throws at anyone who dares to disagree with him. And this makes a mockery of his pompously named Israel “Democratic” Party.

I sense that Barak’s feral ambitions and obvious hatreds have propelled him into the deep end. In my mind, the violent discourse disqualifies Barak from leading this country again, and that’s before we get to discussion of his dismal political record.

Thursday, March 7, 2019

The need to highlight Gantz’s terrible military record even though Netanyahu approved his appointment - by Dr. Aaron Lerner

...Many voters don't think that the contours of an agreement with the Palestinians are relevant when choosing a party since in any case there won't be a deal for the foreseeable future. So whether Blue White is "Left" or not on Arab-Israeli affairs may not matter to these voters. But they most certainly may be deterred from casting their ballot for a party headed by a man who consistently screwed up in key military roles.

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Weekly Commentary..
06 March '19..
Link: http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=73467

Bennie Gantz’s military career was torn to shreds in a feature article in the magazine section last Friday’s edition of the left wing Haaretz.

Haaretz pulled no punches, starting with details of how Gantz screwed up on his year long assignment to prepare for then PM Ehud Barak’s chaotic retreat for Lebanon and concluding with his fiasco in failing to prepare the IDF, as Chief of Staff, to deal with the Hamas assault tunnels reaching across from the Gaza Strip.

Senior IDF sources are quoted observing that Gantz consistently doesn't plan ahead and declines to consider worse case scenarios.

Again. This wasn't in right wing Makor Rishon or B'Sheva. It was in Haaretz.

One would think that Gantz's dismal military record would be the focus of the Likud as it pushes back against the rival Blue White party he heads that now polls more seats than Likud.

Instead Likud attacks Blue White for being "Left".

Yes. It is Left. But you need at least a 15 second attention span reading their platform to understand that. And that's 10 seconds more than Israelis typically are either willing or able to invest.

So why isn't Likud citing Gantz's screw ups, failures that are so graphic in their nature that even a 5 second attention span can comprehend them?

Thursday, June 1, 2017

Ehud Barak: Undercuting Israel’s Security, Blatantly Ignoring Danger - by Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen

Former PM Ehud Barak’s arguments in favor of withdrawal from Judea and Samaria undercut Israel’s security and are a departure from the Oslo Accords’ security vision. Israel would be wise to present President Trump with actual facts on this issue.

Maj. Gen. (res.) Gershon Hacohen..
BESA Center Perspectives No. 482..
31 May 31 '17..
Link: https://besacenter.org/perspectives-papers/ehud-barak-danger/

(While disagreeing as well with Hacohen's alternative, the questions he has asked are excellent YH)

US President Donald Trump’s visit to Israel seems to have triggered a new campaign over the future of the Jewish people in the land of its forefathers, and former Prime Minister Ehud Barak has joined the ranks of those whose hopes for Israeli concessions in Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem have been rekindled.

In a piece published in Haaretz last week that sharply criticized author Micah Goodman’s book Catch 67: The Ideologies behind the Disagreements Tearing Israel Apart, Barak sought to weigh in on the question of whether Israel can properly defend itself in the event it withdraws from Judea and Samaria.

Barak’s answer was decisive: Israel’s refusal to separate from the Palestinians and withdraw to the 1967 lines – with certain exceptions for the big settlement blocs – is “a definite threat to the future of the Zionist project,” while the threats that may arise following a withdrawal are “military technical risks.” He was dismissive of the Right’s premise that such territorial concessions are potentially extremely dangerous, arguing that “Israel is the strongest country in the region militarily, strategically and economically and – if we craft our relations with the United States skillfully – also diplomatically.”

According to Barak, if Israel succeeds in navigating the moves it is expected to pursue, it would be able to deal with any military threat that may rear its head.

But history has proven that even superpowers can fail. One needs to look no further than the Russians and the Americans in Afghanistan.

Since the 2005 disengagement from the Gaza Strip, Israel has a clear point of reference as to the nature of the potential threat a Palestinian state may constitute. By similar logic, one can argue that what happened in the Gaza Strip – i.e., the terrorist threat it poses to the border-adjacent communities – could happen in Judea and Samaria, only this time, it would be the majority of the cities in Israel’s center and coastal plain that would be targeted.

Sunday, August 21, 2016

Even though they hate Bibi, they know he’s right. - by Vic Rosenthal

...Deep in their hearts, those members of the Left that haven’t allowed their long exile from power to completely dry out their brains, have to understand this. Even Labor candidate Yitzhak Herzog had to admit that a “two-state agreement” would be unrealistic now. But boy, do they ever hate Bibi!

Vic Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
20 August '16..





I’ve been reading Ha’aretz lately and listening to some of our left-of-center politicians, and it seems like they are living in an entirely different world than I am.

The usual piece starts off with an attack on Binyamin Netanyahu, each one trying to find a new angle. Ari Shavit tells us that he’s dishonest, he’s obsessed with his father, he hates Arabs, he will destroy the country, he is little by little crushing democracy, and on and on. Avraham Burg claims that Israel is becoming a dictatorship and refers to Iran and the Hamas terror tunnels as “some … Netanyahu phobia.” Phobia!

Former PM Ehud Barak claims that Netanyahu has made serious errors recently that have made Israel vulnerable to a “central security threat.” But he won’t say what, exactly, so we are waiting for it to leak. This from the guy that opened the door to the Second Intifada, and who allowed Druze IDF soldier Madhat Yusuf to bleed to death because he didn’t want to anger the Palestinians.

Most of these writers and politicians admit that Israel is doing well economically and that Bibi has made some serious diplomatic gains, with Turkey, the Sunni Arab states, several African nations, India, even China to some extent. They have to admit that there have been few wars during his years as PM, and they’ve been limited in extent. He has kept us from getting entangled in Syria, seems to have reached a modus vivendi with the Russians, and avoided the big one with Iran/Hezbollah.

(Continue to Full Post)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Also check-out This Ongoing War by Frimet and Arnold Roth. An excellent blog, very important work. 
.

Sunday, June 26, 2016

Fire and brimstone rhetoric from the shortest term in Israel's history - by Martin Sherman

...I could go on and repudiate almost every line of invective in this inappropriate and infuriating speech by one of the worst political leaders in the nation's history. But there are just so many mean-spirited falsehoods one can rebut in a single opinion column. All that remains now is to hope that the Israeli public is savvy and sane enough not to be led astray by the ridiculous rants of a man who has demonstrated time and time again that, well, he couldn't.

Martin Sherman..
Israel Hayom..
24 June '16..
Link: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=16495

Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak recently launched into a derogatory diatribe, viciously vilifying the current government, which was (inexplicably?) voted into power in the (annoyingly?) free and fair elections just over a year ago.

As such, it was less an indictment of the ruling coalition, and far more a harsh condemnation of the Israeli electorate for its (infuriatingly?) stubborn refusal to disregard past experience and vote for parties, whose political credos, presumably similar to those that Barak professes to hold, have been proved -- repeatedly and tragically -- misguided.

With a torrent of fire and brimstone rhetoric, Barak warned ominously of what lay in store in the incumbent government if it was not replaced, or at least, if it was not coerced by popular pressure, to adopt the policies of its ideological adversaries, defeated not long ago at the polls.

In his tirade, he managed to invoke virtually every pejorative adjective in the Hebrew language to brutally berate Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government, which he characterized as "weak, flaccid, raucous, devious, and extremist, that has failed again and again, to ensure security. … It has undermined the fabric of Israeli democracy, failed in managing relations with the U.S. and in shaping Israel's image in the world; it repeatedly misses diplomatic opportunities, suffers from paralysis in effectively managing the conflict, even in the absence of any 'partner.'"

Full disclosure: I am not an uncritical advocate for either Netanyahu or his government. Quite the opposite. In the past I have expressed deep concern over many of his decisions, and grave misgivings as to his approach to numerous issues. But against the backdrop of Barak's harsh words of censure, the spectacle of him presuming to don the mantle of some redeeming and sagacious oracle has a distinctly distasteful and disingenuous ring to it -- falling somewhere between the delusional and the detestable.

The shortest term in history

Ironically -- and for the purposes of this analysis, significantly -- Barak's tenure as prime minister, a mere year and 245 days, was in fact the shortest in Israel's history, following which he was forced to resign and suffered a stinging defeat in the ensuing election, forced on him because of his dismal performance in almost every sphere, but particularly in security -- his purported field of expertise.

Rather than invoke any sense of humility, this dubious "honor" did nothing to deter Barak from preaching, presumptuously, pretentiously and pompously, to the very person, who, in stark contrast to himself, has held the post of PM longer than any of his predecessors -- apart from Israel's first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion.

We are thus compelled to believe that Barak must be counting on severe memory loss on the part of the Israeli public, which, hopefully, will have erased all recollection in the minds of the populace of what transpired under his administration--when debacle followed hard on the heels of disaster.

Monday, September 24, 2012

Retreat with leave or die option for settlers. Latest proposal from DM Barak

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA..
24 September '12..




DM Barak proposes retreat with leave or die option for settlers?

Yisrael Hayom reports today that DM Ehud Barak proposes in an interview to be published in full in tomorrow’s edition his plan to retreat from most of the West Bank – either with agreement with the Palestinians or unilaterally.

Barak proposes to retain the settlement blocs of the Etzion Bloc, Maaleh Adumim and Ariel, estimating that 80-90% of the Jews living in Judea and Samaria reside in those locations.

As for Jews living outside these areas, Barak would offer three programs:

1. Individuals and families could leave and receive compensation.
2. Communities can relocate as communities,
3. Those who do not want to move will not be compensated and will be left behind when Israel retreats. They will stay under PA rule for a “trial period” of five years.

It should be noted that the Israeli media does not celebrate Yom Kippur by publishing satirical fake items. Such items are published in the Purim edition.

Link: http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=58366

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook.
. 

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Arens - Unilateral folly

Civilians have now become equal partners with the Israel Defense Forces in the war against Israel's enemies. That is not the way it was supposed to be.

Moshe Arens..
Haaretz..
05 June '12..

It seems that some of our military-men-turned-politicians are suffering from the unilateral withdrawal syndrome. It may be typical of the military mindset: Get it over with! Finish the job! Do something! Do anything! Actually, on some occasions that may be the correct strategy. It usually comes under the heading of "Cutting your losses." But often it may be the wrong way to go.

Two of our illustrious military leaders seem to have been afflicted by this syndrome. One was Ariel Sharon, who peremptorily decided on the unilateral withdrawal from Gush Katif and the forceful uprooting of 8000 Israeli citizens from their homes, in the expectation that the move would ease Israel's defense problems and advance the peace process. The other is the present defense minister, Ehud Barak, who has a long record of espousing unilateral withdrawals in the expectation that therein lay the solution to our problems, or else that this is the way to evade an oncoming tsunami that he thinks he sees approaching on the horizon.

His first opportunity came in 2000, when, as prime minister and defense minister (he insisted on holding both positions ), he decided on the unilateral withdrawal from the south Lebanon security zone, abandoning Israel's ally, the South Lebanon Army, and bringing the Hezbollah terrorists up to the border fence in the north. He expected this move would transform Hezbollah from a terrorist organization into a Lebanese political party that would abandon its policy of launching attacks against Israel, or alternately that Israel, after the retreat, would be able to deter Hezbollah from continuing its terror attacks against Israel. It didn't work.

Friday, June 1, 2012

Glick - The reign of the fantasists

Caroline Glick..
carolineglick.com..
01 June '12..

Defense Minister Ehud Barak has done it again. Speaking on Wednesday at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, Barak warned that if Israel can't cut a deal with the Palestinians soon, it should consider surrendering Judea and Samaria in exchange for nothing.

Even the diehard leftists in the media had a hard time swallowing his words. After all, when Barak was premier, he oversaw Israel's unilateral surrender of south Lebanon in 2000. Barak promised that by giving Hezbollah south Lebanon, Israel would force the Iranian proxy army to disarm and behave like a Western political party.

Whoopsie.

Then of course, there is the Gaza precedent.

Ignoring the lesson of Lebanon, Barak's successor Ariel Sharon reenacted his unilateral surrender policy in Gaza in 2005. Like Barak, Sharon promised that once Gaza was cleared of all Jewish presence, it would magically transform itself into a Middle Eastern version of Singapore.

Whoopsie.

Both Barak and Sharon promised that their unilateral surrender policies would do more than merely transform Hezbollah and Hamas into liberal democrats. They said that by cutting and running, Israel would earn the love of the international community, and winning the love of the likes of Washington and Brussels, they said, was the most urgent item on Israel's agenda.

Apparently Barak was referring to the same imperative when on Wednesday he said that Israel needs to act fast because, "We are on borrowed time. We will reach a wall, and we'll pay the price."

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Ottolenghi - “The Sword On Our Neck”

Emanuele Ottolenghi..
Commentary/Contentions..
30 May '12..



Remember when Meir Dagan, upon leaving office as head of Israel’s Mossad spy agency, gave a briefing to the press, where he warned against hasty military decisions and said that “Israel should not hasten to attack Iran, doing so only when the sword is upon its neck”?

In a clear reference to Dagan’s words, Israel’s defense minister, Ehud Barak, has just said, in a lecture delivered earlier today at the Tel Aviv-based Institute for National Security Studies that “the metaphorical sword is now on our neck.”

Israel is the only country in the world that launched, not once but twice, a preemptive strike on an adversary’s nuclear facilities. These words should not be taken lightly by Western policymakers intent on stretching the ongoing negotiating round with Iran at least until the November U.S. presidential elections.

Barak’s speech is a warning then – and one that diplomats reading progress into Iran’s foot dragging last week in Baghdad would be foolish to downplay.

Link: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/05/30/barak-warns-about-iran/

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand
.

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Kushner - From Israel: Crossing a Red Line?

Arlene Kushner..
22 April '12..

First, a Zakkai update. This time I quote verbatim from the parents:

"After two surgeries in 7 weeks, it's very hard for us to believe but we are heading to Boston again for surgery, this time to remove the thoracic component of the tumor. Surgery is scheduled for Monday, April 30th at 7:30 am and is expected to take 5-6 hours. Due to the more complex and higher risk nature of this surgery, which will involve cutting through muscle to spread his ribs as well as fully collapsing his left lung, he will go straight from the OR to the ICU for 1-2 days (with a tube sticking out of him to maintain the pressure in his chest). Our expected stay in the hospital is 4-5 days (hopefully, our trooper will surprise us again just as he has after the first two surgeries!)

"On February 11 (the day before our lives were transformed), we would never have imagined that our son would undergo 3 surgeries in less than 3 months. We truly hope and pray this upcoming surgery will be the last one Zakkai will ever need."

Keep praying, my friends! Rephael Zakkai Avraham ben Yakira Avigael

~~~~~~~~~~

The red line I am referring to is with regard to the scheduled government (or more precisely the Defense Ministry/Civil Administration) demolition of the Ulpana neighborhood (Givat Ha'Ulpana) of Beit El by the end of this month.

The neighborhood is comprised of 15 buildings, but we are speaking here of a total of five buildings that are scheduled for destruction imminently. Those buildings house 30 families, encompassing more than 150 children.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Defend our country, our people and our soldiers!

Bibi and Barak - give the IDF the equipment to defend our honor and our lives!

Yehudit Tayar..
19 April '12..

Yesterday the media had a field day with the suspension of Lt. Colonel Shalom Eisner following the coverage of how a demonstrator was hit by him. How sadly reminiscent is the coverage of this incident between Israel, the IDF and the anarchists who came to try and destroy our country and people. It brings to mind the "documented coverage" of the actions of our armed soldiers as they were portrayed running after young Arabs during the violent uprisings in the 1980's without showing the reason for the chase.

The selective coverage portraying our brave soldiers as monsters who strike the innocent, without showing the violence directed both verbally and physically against our security forces, is aimed at directing negative world opinion against Israel and not at the truth.

This situation is painfully familiar to us when the world points an accusatory finger against Israel in each and every situation. Terror against Israel is rampant and when we send our soldiers to prevent and fight the terror bases, the world convenes to condemn Israel for inhumanity. Families are slaughtered in their sleep, including innocent children and babies, in their homes while the so-called "Peace partners", the Palestinian Authority, officially commends the murderers as "heroes of their people".

Thursday, April 5, 2012

Shragai - Barak's misuse of the law

Nadav Shragai..
Israel Hayom..
05 April '12..

Three years ago, in March 2009, Defense Minister Ehud Barak marked the 29th anniversary of the death of Yigal Allon, fondly reminiscing about the renowned Israeli general and politician and praising his accomplishments. It is just that there is at least one major difference that separates Barak from Allon: Allon was an enthusiastic advocate of Hebron settlers. Barak has become their chief prosecutor.

During Passover 1968, Allon helped Rabbi Moshe Levinger's group transform their settlement in the Park Hotel into an anchor from which sprouted Kiryat Arba and the Jewish community in Hebron. On Passover eve 2012, as Levinger's children were trying to recreate that historic Passover Seder, Barak forcefully evicted them from the house across from the Cave of the Patriarchs.

The rule of law, with all due respect, is only an excuse. Dozens, and even hundreds of Arab homes around Beit Hamachpelah (as the disputed house is known, thanks to its proximity to the Cave of the Patriarchs – Ma'arat Hamachpela in Hebrew) were built without permits. This is of no concern to Barak and his legal team. At the heart of the matter are the enormous gaps between Barak's worldview and that of the majority of the other ministers (from Shas, Likud, Yisrael Beitenu and Habait Hayehudi) regarding the Jewish settlement enterprise, which includes Hebron.

Wednesday, April 4, 2012

IMRA - The "Machpelah House" and rule of law

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA Weekly Commentary..
04 April '12..




======================================

Statement by DM Barak
(Communicated by Josh Hantman, MOD International Media Adviser (Wednesday),
4.4.12, the Israel Police evacuated the settlers who had inhabited the "Patriarch House" in Hebron. The evacuation was carried out on the orders of Defense Minister Ehud Barak.

Defense Minister Barak said afterwards: "I will continue to act in order to maintain the rule of law and democracy while guaranteeing the authority of the State over its citizens."

Defense Minister Barak added that "Any request to acquire the relevant buying permit or any other transactions will be dealt with professionally and impartially, as is the practice. However, we cannot allow a situation where unlawful actions are taken to determine or dictate ad-hoc facts to the authorities."

=====================================

Before going into the specifics of the “Machpelah House”, which was evacuated today at the instruction of Defense Minister Ehud Barak, a few words about Ehud Barak and the rule of law.

The laws in Israel strictly restrict work permits to foreign workers such that there is absolutely no way to get a work permit to employ a foreign worker as a housekeeper for a household of able bodied persons.

And yet, despite this, Ehud Barak saw Virginia, an illegal Filipina worker, in his home for close to a year, and we are supposed to believe that it never dawned on “Mr. Rule of Law” that there might be a problem.

By the way, Virginia told reporters that she took the place of another illegal foreign worker at the Barak home.

Pop Quiz: Why wasn’t “Mr. Rule of Law” Ehud Barak’s Cabinet Secretary Isaac Herzog indicted for illegally diverting funds from a Canadian non-profit organization to the campaign coffers of Ehud Barak? A move that could have jeopardized the non-profit status of the fund?

Answer: Lack of evidence.

Bonus question: Why “lack of evidence”?

Answer: Isaac Herzog invoked his right to remain silent to avoid incriminating himself.

A critical and fundamental principle in a democratic society is the equal application of the law.

Some examples:

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

IMRA - Israel accepts and expects Palestinian retaliations

DM BARAK COMMENTS DURING HIS VISIT TO THE IDF GAZA BRIGADE

Dr. Aaron Lerner..
IMRA..
13 March '12..

[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: To summarize: Israel accepts that when the IDF kills a terrorist that the Palestinians will respond by trying to kill Israelis. It is an accepted tit-for-tat. Those living in range of the Palestinian response can continue to expect to be fired at. They can only hope that the rocket hurdling towards them is not one of the 10% that Iron Dome doesn't intercept. As for those living too close to Gaza for Iron Dome to function. Well. Tough luck.]

(Related article: Observation: Quiet should not be the goal today in Gaza)

===================================

DM BARAK’S COMMENTS DURING HIS VISIT TO THE IDF GAZA BRIGADE
(Communicated by Josh Hantman, International Media Advisor, MOD dover@mod.gov.il )

Defense Minister Ehud Barak made the following remarks this morning (Tuesday), 13.3.12, during his visit to the IDF Gaza Brigade:

On the Escalation in the South
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Israel_under_fire-March_2012.htm
:

“It is relatively quiet this morning. It appears that we have reached the end of this round of violence. The IDF demonstrated once again that we will take out anyone who tries to act against us. The rocket situation was handled efficiently and appropriately under the guidance and leadership of the Chief-of-Staff Lt.-Gen. Benny Gantz http://www.idf.il/1283-15229-EN/Dover.aspx , GOC Southern Command Maj.-Gen.
Tal Russo and Brig.-Gen. Yossi Bachar – and with the uninterrupted and intense cooperation of the IAF, the Israel Security Agency and the relevant intelligence officers.

Friday, November 18, 2011

Gordon - If Settlements Are Only 1.1 Percent of West Bank, How Are They an Obstacle to Peace?

Evelyn Gordon
Commentary/Contentions
17 November '11



http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/11/17/settlements-obstacle-to-peace/#more-774938

In an interview with Charlie Rose this week, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said the Palestinians’ refusal to negotiate unless Israel freezes settlement construction is unjustified, because their claim settlements are stealing the land needed for a Palestinian state is pure “propaganda.” How so? Because “after 44 years, the whole Jewish settlement in the whole West Bank together doesn’t cover even two percent of the area.”

Is this mere propaganda on Barak’s part – a lie meant to downplay the devastating impact of Jewish settlement? Actually, Palestinians put the figure even lower: In an interview with the Arabic radio station As-Shams two weeks ago, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said that based on an aerial photograph provided by European sources, the settlements cover only 1.1 percent of the West Bank.

So if settlements cover only 1.1 percent of the West Bank, why does the entire West deem them the main obstacle to peace? Because admitting that settlements aren’t the main obstacle to peace would force it to confront an unpalatable truth: that the real obstacle to peace is Palestinian unwillingness to accept a Jewish state in any borders.

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Harel - As war looms large, Israel is sticking its head in the sand

Israel Harel
Haaretz
08 September '11
H/T P. David Hornik



http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/as-war-looms-large-israel-is-sticking-its-head-in-the-sand-1.383158

No Israeli campaign ever ends with the enemy's surrender, which is one of the reasons why we are eternally at war.

This week, the head of the Home Front Command, Maj. Gen. Eyal Eisenberg, said what he thought to the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University. "It's being called the Arab Spring, but it could turn into a radical Islamic winter," he said. "And that increases the chance of an all-out, total war, which could even include the use of weapons of mass destruction."

His remarks caused a storm. Even his cautious phrasing (he said "chance" ) was an affront to the political correctness that has been formulated in Israel regarding the true nature of this "spring." In contrast to the dreamers, he called a spade, a spade.

Eisenberg's analysis (which was meant to be a situational assessment, not a defiant declaration ) drew a reprimand from Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and Barak's aide, Amos Gilad, joined the fray, telling Israel Radio's Reshet Bet's Aryeh Golan, "Our security situation has never been better." The same declaration, word for word, was made by our nation's leaders on the eve of the Yom Kippur War. Surely anyone who remembers this trembled.

Is "the conception" - and history as well - repeating itself?

"None of Israel's rivals is interested in initiating a war against it," said Barak. None of them? Really? Not even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Why exactly has Hassan Nasrallah been stockpiling thousands of rockets? Have we really heard no hostile voices coming from Egypt? Why are missiles, some of them capable of hitting Ben-Gurion International Airport, being smuggled into Gaza? And does anyone really know what might happen next in Amman?

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Glick: Ehud Barak's latest Nakba

Caroline Glick
carolineglick.com
16 May '11

http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/05/ehud-baraks-latest-nakba-1.php

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have some explaining to do.

On Sunday, Israel was invaded along its border with Syria. More than 100 Syrians successfully infiltrated the country and rioted violently in Majdal Shams for several hours.

The IDF was reportedly surprised by these events. It was more prepared for violent riots along the borders with Lebanon and Gaza. And security forces were deployed more or less effectively in Jerusalem, the Galilee, the Negev, Judea and Samaria on Sunday.

Jerusalem, a focal point of the unrest since Friday, witnessed rioting in several Arab neighborhoods, which reached its peak with an assault on Hadassah Hospital on Mt. Scopus.

But the government and the IDF were surprised by the invasion from Syria.

What can possibly explain this surprise? And what does it tell us about the defense establishment's ability to cope with the swiftly expanding and changing threats facing Israel?

BEFORE WE consider that issue, we need to understand the nature of the new assault now underway.

Sunday's events were fully anticipated. In 1998, at the height of the so-called peace process, Nobel Peace Prize laureate and PLO/Fatah chieftan Yasser Arafat invented a new Palestinian holiday - the Nakba.

That year, for the first time, Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza rioted on May 15 - the secular date of Israel's establishment in 1948. The purpose of Israel's "peace partner's" initiative was to escalate anti-Israel sentiments of Arabs on both sides of the 1949 armistice lines. And indeed, the next year, for the first time, the Nakba - or catastrophe - of Israel's birth on May 15, 1948 was marked by Israel's Arab citizens.

In the years since, the Palestinians and their brethren throughout the Arab world have consistently escalated their May 15 attacks, with anti-Israel mass demonstrations now common fare throughout the Arab world.

In recent months, Hamas and Fatah have been ratcheting up their incitement and calling for their followers to descend on Jerusalem on May 15. Millions worldwide participated in social media campaigns calling for a third Palestinian intifada to begin on May 15.

Thursday, May 5, 2011

Barak to Haaretz: World clueless what Iranian ayatollah would do if had nukes

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
05 May '11



[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA:

Sure, the headline writers at Haaretz based their headline ["Barak to Haaretz: Iran won't drop nuclear bomb on Israel"] on his response when asked whether he thinks Iran would drop a nuclear bomb on Israel: Not on us and not on any other neighbor.

But in the very same interview he concedes that I don't think that anyone can say responsibly that these ayatollahs, if they have nuclear weapons, are something you can rely on...to say that somebody really knows and understands what will happen with such a leadership sitting in a bunker in Tehran and thinking that it's going to fall in a few days and it is capable of doing it? I don't know what it would do.

Put another way: OK children, daddy will tell you that everything is OK so you can continue with your lives. But in the event that things don't work out please note that I warned, for the record, that I am clueless as to what will really happen.

Mr. Barak declines to entertain the possibility that, driven by a set of values and belief that are absolutely alien to us, it turns out to make all the logic in the world to try to incinerate Israel with a nuclear weapon out of the belief that the act will bring about a mystical transformation of the world.

There are two problems with this approach:

1. You don't analyze and predict the actions of a third party by asserting that they follow your set of values and beliefs but instead on the basis of the third party's set of values and beliefs.

2. When Israelis assert that Iran is not a nuclear threat unless Iran itself is threatened, the message to the world is that a nuclear Iran would not represent a clear and present existential danger and thus efforts to prevent a nuclear Iran do not have to be a top priority for the world.]

=============================================

Barak to Haaretz: Iran won't drop nuclear bomb on Israel
Though the Iranian government seems to have largely eluded the wave of revolutions in the Arab world, the defense minister thinks it too could collapse.
By Gidi Weitz Haaretz 00:42 05.05.11
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/barak-to-haaretz-iran-won-t-drop-nuclear-bomb-on-israel-1.359870

If Iran succeeds in developing nuclear weapons, it is unlikely to bomb Israel, Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Haaretz in an Independence Day interview.

Barak said Israel should not spread public panic about the Iranian nuclear program − a position that seems to put him out of step with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who in recent years has repeatedly compared the Iranian push to develop a nuclear bomb to the Third Reich’s development of increasingly sophisticated weapons.

When asked whether he thinks Iran would drop a nuclear bomb on Israel, Barak said: “Not on us and not on any other neighbor.”

“I don’t think in terms of panic,” he said. “What about Pakistan, some political meltdown happens there and four bombs wind up in Iran. So what? So you head for the airport? You close down the country? Just because they got a shortcut? No. We are still the most powerful in the Middle East.”

All the same, Barak said Iranian rulers could not be relied upon to remain clearheaded.