“After me, the deluge!”
Barak detonates the Middle East
New in the Website
In various recent statements, Israel’s Minister of Defense Ehud Barak is desperately pushing ahead for an Israeli attack on Iran. In a recent interview with CNN, he said Iran has fewer than nine months until it produces a nuclear weapon, adding that soon we will reach a situation where nobody will be able to do anything practical about it. In “Hold Me Back,” Shouts Netanyahu, Netanyahu and Barak disclosed themselves as supporting such an attack, while IDF Head of Staff Beni Gantz, Mossad Director Tamir Pardo, Head of Aman (IDF Military Intelligence Corps) Aviv Cochabi and the Head of Shin Beth Yoram Cohen – in other words, Israel’s leading generals - opposed it. Then, in A French Kiss to Netanyahu, it was mentioned that Israeli President Shimon Peres had said that “the military option against Iran is the most probable outcome of the current situation.” With this declaration, the triumvirate of supporters of a military attack on Iran was completed: Netanyahu, Barak and Peres. Days later, Peres typically changed his discourse. Barak didn’t mind that, he kept pushing ahead towards such an attack. Is Barak a good shepherd taking care of sheep about to be slaughtered? Is Barak sincerely attempting to avoid a nuclear holocaust?
On Good Leadership
Can we evaluate leadership? Western humanist states would follow their relativistic morals and claim – in one of several ways – that the task is practically impossible. “You won’t be able to isolate and compare the conditions in which different leaders operate” would be the heart of their argument.
As happens also with media reports issued by these bodies, reality is different. Judging the actions of leaders is relatively easy; we were taught the technique two millennia ago by the greatest Teacher. Jesus said:
John 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
The criteria can be applied easily to most situations. Is the leader sacrificing himself for the sake of his sheep? If so, he is a worthy one. Is he sacrificing his sheep for the sake of his secret bank accounts in Zurich? If so, he is a bad leader. To which group do you belong, Mr. Barak?
Is Iran a threat?
Fact is that the Islamic Republic of Iran has never initiated an attack on another country. There is no reason to believe its military industry is not defense-oriented. It is difficult to understand the Israeli obsession – channeled mainly via Barak’s discourses - with Iran when Israel is facing more serious threats along all its borders.
Yet, Barak is hitting the war drums with the skills of a tone-deaf. He is giving Iran justification and incentive to its becoming a nuclear state. Israel’s bombing of the Iraqi Osirak reactor had already led to the spread out of the Iranian nuclear program in so many sites that it is practically indestructible. Barak is no fool; we know he completely understands the results of his almost daily provocations when he recently told in an interview with PBS in New York that were he an Iranian leader, he would probably develop nuclear weapons too. He added: “I don’t delude myself that they are doing it just because of Israel.” In other words, Barak understand there is no danger Iran would attack first, and yet he is shamelessly manipulating Iran into war with Israel.
Does Barak truly think this is the best way of protecting his flock? Would he ride the fighters to Tehran?
It is difficult to know what Barak is thinking, but relatively easy to see he is in a desperate political situation. Despite that being Minister of Defense transforms him into the second most important politician in Israel, Barak is fighting for his political life. And he is losing. After winning back the leadership of the Labor party, Barak was sworn in as Minister of Defense on June 2007, as part of Prime Minister Olmert's cabinet reshuffle. During December 2008 through January 2009, Barak led (as defense minister) Operation Cast Lead, which led to Israel being defined as a terror state. In the 2009 elections, the Labor Party he led won just 13 out of the 120 Knesset seats, making it the fourth largest party. Barak reached an agreement with Netanyahu under which Labor joined the governing coalition. Barak retained his position as Defense Minister. In January 2011, Labor Party leader Barak formed a breakaway party, Atzmaut (Independence), which enabled him to maintain his loyal Labor's MK faction within Netanyahu's government after Labor threatened to force Barak to leave the government. After Barak's move, Netanyahu was able to maintain a majority government.
Barak’s preemptive move against the Labor party was successful on a tactical scale. He stayed in the government and in the same position. However, it was a strategic disaster. His new party – Atzmaut – has little chance to enter the next Knesset. If he is lucky, he may get the minimum possible amount of Knesset members. If he is unlucky, he will stay out. In any case, even if Netanyahu – his brother in arms – wins the next elections, Barak won’t get his beloved Minister of Defense position. A party of two or three Knesset members has no chance of getting that senior position in the subsequent government.
Unless – of course – he proves himself once again as a war hero, attracting votes from IDF soldiers, especially from the reservists. This effect is well known in Israeli politics. Many years ago, Lieutenant General Rafael “Raful” Eitan, who led the First Lebanese War, entered the Knesset with a newly formed party; his name was so attractive to the military-related electorate that he got 8 seats in the parliament. The new party was mockingly known afterwards as “Raful and the Seven Dwarves,” because nobody remembered the names of the other 7 members. Barak needs a war for this strategy to succeed; Iran may provide the perfect excuse.
If this is true, then Barak is a terrible leader, ready to sacrifice not only his soldiers, but also his country for the sake of his retaining the position of Minister of Defense.
It is easy to track back this odd behavior of Jewish leaders. Some may call it the Abraham syndrome, when Abraham tried to sacrifice his son and was stopped by an angel of God. Genesis 22:10-12 And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.
The scarification of sons for the wellbeing of the parents cannot enter the definition of a Good Shepherd, a good leader, given by Jesus. We meet the Abraham Syndrome again during the Holocaust. Due to the delicate nature of the following material, I want to state it is quoted verbatim from the Neturei Karta website. Neturei Karta is an Orthodox, non-Zionist groups of Jews with congregations in New York and Jerusalem. The abovementioned page is an excerpt from Sefer Min Hametzar (page 92) by Rabbi Michael Ber Weismandel. The excerpt is a literal translation of the letter the Jewish Rescue Committee in Czechoslovakia received from the Zionist Jewish Agency Executive Officers in Switzerland. This was in reply to the call of the Jewish Rescue Committee for help, with Documentary evidence furnished, concerning the fate of millions of Jewish people in Nazi occupied Europe.
The letter says: “So, insofar as the masses are concerned: RAK B'DAM TIHJE LAKU HAAREZ, (Eretz Yisroel will be ours only by paying with blood), but as far as our immediate circle is concerned, ATEM TAJLU. The messenger bearing this letter will supply you with funds for this purpose." The book explains “After I accustomed myself to the peculiar writing, I trembled when I realized the import of RAK B'DAM TIHJE LANU HAAREZ. But many weeks passed, and I was still confounded by the meaning of ATEM TAJLU. Until one day, it struck me. ATEM TAJIU meant "You escape", for the word "tiyul" (walking trip) was used by them as a euphemistic code for "escape". They meant to say - you fifteen or twenty "party members", escape from Czechoslovakia and save your hides. The price of Eretz Yisroel is the blood of the men and women, hoary sages, and babes in arms, - but not YOUR blood! Let us not spoil this plan by giving the Axis powers money to save Jewish lives. But for you, comrades, I have enclosed carfare for your escape. What a nightmare! The Zionist agent "diplomat" comes to Czechoslovakia and says 'Now is a very critical time. But comparatively speaking, it is not at all critical for you trapped Jews. For there is an emergency of far greater proportions; namely, BINYAN HA-ARETZ (the prize of Modinat Yisrael). Shed your blood cheerfully, for your blood is cheap. But for your blood, the Land (of Israel) will be ours!” The Hebrew transliteration and translation could be further improved, but overall, the assessment made is true. The Jewish leadership during WWII made an Abraham-like decision to sacrifice their flock in order to get material gains in a near future. In The Cross of Bethlehem there is another example from that period. Under the circumstances, who is to blame? Who was The Nastiest Nazi?
Considering all this evidence it is hard not to see Barak as a modern version of those terrible Jewish Communist Commissars, a new-age politruk advancing his career by stepping on the bodies of his peers, friends and sons. An atheist humanist mocking God’s test of Abraham.
After all, it is not so difficult to figure out what Barak is thinking: “After me, the deluge!” Iran, prepare for war!
My articles on the web are my main income these days; please donate or buy The Cross of Bethlehem or Back in Bethlehem.