Posted by Honigman
Subscribe to our
|Mon Dec 13, 2010 9:04 pm Barak, Meet Barack...Take 2
| Barak, Meet Barack…Take 2
by Gerald A. Honigman
Oh, I’m sorry…You’ve already met.
Perhaps that helps explain some things…
It just keeps getting worse. How low will he go?
Israel’s Defense Minister and much-decorated earlier military commander, Ehud Barak, is making headlines again by repeating his offer to divide Jersualem with Arabs who, by their very own, exact words, only see such moves in destruction-in-stages,Trojan Horse terms. And they're the "moderates."
Last May, he made the news with another gem--words of a politician taking cheap shots designed to further his own political future, not the mark of a truthful, courageous man.
As with his renewed Jerusalem schemes, those were also words that neither Israel nor its people needed to hear.
Let's turn the clock back a bit to better understand what Barak is up too...
In a speech given on Israel’s Memorial Day on May 19th, he proclaimed that there was no way forward in negotiations other than to allow for Palestinians to have a state of their own...
“The world is not willing to accept… that Israel will rule another people for decades more…There is no other way, whether you like it or not, than to let them rule themselves.”
Now, who, pray tell, was he talking to?
Do most Israelis really need his wisdom to enlighten them on this issue?
Has Israel not bent over backwards, sideways, and forwards to arrive at a fair compromise which would allow for precisely what Barak was chastising its people about?
Think of the words Barak deliberately chose to state to a world that he knew would be quick to pounce. Sure enough, they were headlines all over soon afterwards.
When will those oppressive Jews finally grant freedom to those poor Arabs?
Indeed, it’s the same message most of the world hears constantly.
Israel’s own Defense Minister didn’t need to repeat the lie. And is it too much to ask that a person with such responsiblity act with his head above the sand?
So, what’s up?
Not long before the May remarks, American President Barack Obama held a very amicable meeting with Ehud Barak. Contrast that with his abruptly leaving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to go to dinner with his family so Bibi would have time to reconsider the alleged error of his ways--not prostrating himself and his country enough to the demands of a frequently hostile State Department and the Obama White House.
Barak is a Labor Party rival of Likud’s Netanyahu. Too often Labor has lived in LaLaLand regarding what the Arabs' real intentions are towards both Jews and their sole, resurrected nation.
Recall that Foreign Minister, Kadima’s Tzippi Livni, was a relative favorite of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice not long ago.
Like President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton, Rice also liked to be nasty and scream at Jews who don't “cooperate.” Of course, Tzippi’s boss, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, was pliable enough, so it really didn’t make that much difference back then. In 2008, Livni ran a close race against Netanyahu at about the same time America was electing Barack Obama.
There is no doubt that Barack prefers Barak. And the two can use each other nicely...the former can get Israel to cave into his one-sided demands on it if the latter can replace Netanyahu; and the latter gets the weight of an American President to back that attempt.
With the non-negotiation negotiations (i.e., Jew arm-twisting) now at end, there is no doubt that Mr. Obama and the Foggy Folks, seething at Netanyahu, have something else up their sleeves. For starters, there is increasing talk about a move elsewhere to unitalerally recognize "Palestine" in the teritories adjacent to the '49 armistice lines. Latin America and others are already hopping aboard. Now, how will an Obama White House respond to this development (or, has it been instigating it behind the scenes?)--even with much egg on its face courtesy of the 2010 elections? A crisis might trigger new Israeli elections, and then...
Well, then Israel must act unilaterally on its own and annex sufficient land in Judea and Samaria to give it the territorial buffer in the compromise virtually promised by 242. But, I'm straying, so let's get back to Barak...
Ehud Barak, the war hero, yielded Israel’s right to secure, defensible, real borders promised via the final draft of UNSC Resolution 242 under pressure from President Clinton at Camp David and Taba in 2000.
While Arafat rejected that deal, Barak’s offer became the starting point for all subsequent “negotiations” from that point forward.
Caving to President Clinton earlier as he is also now doing, Barak agreed to a return to the ‘49, U.N.-imposed armistice lines which made Israel a mere 9-15 miles wide at its strategic waist–where most of its population, capital, main airport, parliament, industry, and so forth are located…a constant temptation to those who would see it dead.
As some of us have repeatedly written elsewhere, that was not supposed to happen–and all of the architects of the final draft of 242, former Presidents, and so forth agreed.
If such dangerous concessions promised true peace, one might consider them. But anyone following what the Arabs have repeatedly stated, how they've acted, etc. and so forth knows that such unilateral moves by Israel are simply laughed at by Arabs and seen as weakness. They only bring Arab rockets, mortars, suicide bombers, and such that much closer to Israel proper.
Thus, Barak’ s earlier caving in on crucial matters of Israel’s security in 2000 has now allowed for Barack to demand that Israel abandon any hope of a fair territorial compromise. That's what the fight over the building freeze has been all about.
Barack demands that Israel accept the Saudi “Peace” Plan and has repeatedly stated that Israel would be crazy to reject it. That plan calls for a total return to the ‘49 Auschwitz lines followed by Israel being inundated by allegedly “returning” Arab refugees. After doing this and exposing the necks of its kids again, the Arabs might “normalize” relations…whatever that means for folks who routinely call their neighbors kilab yahud (Jew dogs), sons of apes and pigs, killers of prophets, and so forth.
“Peace,” indeed, Barak and Barack...that of the grave.
And that’s what the mess regarding Jews building in Jerusalem and such has been all about–not apartment buildings.
It’s about whether Israel gets the territorial buffer promised to it via 242 or doesn’t–and on lands that Jews have historical claims to as well as Arabs.
The issue is not–as Barak shamefully suggested in his May 2010 Memorial Day speech–that Israel wants to rule Arabs and deny them rights.
If he wants to lecture on this topic, tens of millions of native Imazhigen (”Berbers”) in North Africa are being told that they must name their children with Arab names and are not even allowed to speak their own native language. There is similar, blatant subjugation being committed by Arabs against tens of millions of other, non-Arab peoples in the region as well.
But, despite such real subjugation going on elsewhere, like the rest of the world’s hypocrites, an either uncourageous, ignorant, and/or politically scheming Barak can only take Israel to task for its alleged crimes.
No, the current nastiness is not about Jews building in Jerusalem (a place they’ve been doing such things for over three millennia), a city which, since its reunification after the '67 War, is now open to all peoples--unlike the situation from 1949 to 1967 when then Transjordan's Arab League conquered it after invading a reborn Israel in 1948.
Rather, it is all about whether the birth of that Arab 22nd state–and second, not first, one in “Palestine” (Jordan sits on most of the original April 25, 1920 territory)–demands, at the very least, the gross endangerment of the sole, resurrected nation that Jews finally got to have for themselves.
President Obama & Co. would like nothing more than to see Netanyahu’s government topple so to get a “more cooperative” Israeli leadership emerge. That’s what Barack’s coziness with Barak is all about. And that's also what Barak's earlier statements and current remarks about Jerusalem are all about.
Ehud caved in 2000, and Israel wound up in the predicament it’s now in just struggling to get some sanity in its borders and having to fight the most powerful leader in the world over this. It wasn’t always this way. Check out just this one of many articles for starters and see what former American presidents and other leaders had to say about Israel’s future borders...
Unless he can stick to his job of defending his country without further harming it on the world scene, perhaps it’s time for Barak to return to the kibbutz. His distinguished military career, unfortunately, has been followed by one anything but that considering his political maneuvers–unless he’s judged by Israel’s enemies.