That is the consideration I was contemplating this morning. This is all about former Defence Minister Ehud Barak and his outspoken views. The issue all over the papers are that Israel had not proceeded three times to attack the Iranian nuclear facilities.
So is this freedom of speech, is this treason or is this something else? You see, as a former Defence Minister he has certain duties. One of them is defending and keep safe the state of Israel. So was this a ‘military men and cowardly politician’ scenario as some people report? Without all the facts it would be poor judgement on my side to continue some view. Yet, my view, like that of some others who matter. I have been there, I saw Israel in July 1982. I saw Israel on other occasions and I saw on TV, like many others how Sbarro became the place of slaughter. The Israeli army has been ever vigilant in keeping Israel safe. So, why was Iran not attacked?
It could be a simple as the tactical setback that an attack would bring, it would be a direct problem for any Israeli to get anything done in the UN building and at that time, there was not enough evidence that the enrichment of Uranium was a clear and present danger at that particular moment in time.
These are all issues that matter, as former Defence Minister, Ehud Barak knows this. If he does not, he should never have been elected into that position. But that is a mess Mossad can take a look at. You see I remember them from 1984. Nahum Admoni was someone to bring the deadly chill of fear into your heart. I do not know anything about Tamir Pardo, but I feel decently certain that he has a more relaxed job and he is watching both the Syrian and Iranian areas with due diligence on an hourly basis. So is this just about another comeback of Ehud Barak? That is what I suspect. Of course Ehud Barak making these claims just after the rocket attacks from Syria is only one side to it. If attacks are now coming from there, there is every chance that more attacks will also come from Gaza. I cannot state for certain that one means the other, but there is every chance that Israel could face attacks form Sinai, which would make Eilat vulnerable, whilst attacks happen to the north at equal pace. This is what I feared all along. I illustrated this in ‘ISIS is coming to town!‘ (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2014/06/23/isis-is-coming-to-town/). Yes, the article is a year old, but in my defence there was no clear reliable information on how strong ISIS was, what they had planned and what time line they used. So is there still a danger? Yes, there is and there always was. The issue is that pre-emptive actions will not make any difference, if anything, it could fuel extremist support. It could be for this very reason that the military held off. The main reason will remain that Israel is not committed to war, it is committed to peace and the defence of the state of Israel. Do you not think that Rafael Advanced Defence Systems could have come up with something a lot more offensive if war was on Israel’s mind? It has been the cornerstone of every issue playing. Israel only wants to stay safe, as such it has always been the Hamas covenant to eradicate the Jews that have been the foundation of the Gaza issues. After Adolf Hitler had his European tour 1939-1945, did you think that the Jewish people would ever accept such attack on their existence ever again? Think again, I say!
SO in that light, should Ehud Barak be regarded as a very dangerous man? A man who is willing to play fast and loose with the state of Israel, just to get one more comeback?
That is the part I am uncertain about without a lot more information, but consider the following quotes “For years, both he and Netanyahu issued veiled threats to attack if the world did not take action. Those threats, while often dismissed by commentators as bluster, were widely seen as a key factor in rallying international sanctions against Iran“. I was always in favour of an attack, should there be actual evidence that weapons grade Uranium was produced, but I was also adamant that Israel should not be the one doing the attack. In my view that would be the tinderbox that was not allowed to light the fuse. America yes (preferable no) and the EEC (or NATO) absolutely yes. The friends of Iran would have to see that the amount of nations willing to step in would make them reconsider alliances. The second quote is “Barak told his interviewer that both he and Netanyahu favoured an attack in 2010, but the military chief of staff at the time, Gabi Ashkenazi, said Israel did not have the operational capability“, which is very likely. You see in 2010, the Gaza area remained a growing concern, only an idiot starts a war on more than one front, so the assessment of Gabi Ashkenazi seems to have been the prudent one. Considering the growing attacks of missiles in 2010, 2011 and 2012 only gives additional evidence that not attacking seems to have been the wisest course of action. That view has not changed. As the dangers for Israel diversify, Israel needs to make changes to the policies they make, as such, any attack on Iran would have destroyed these options. Whatever aide might come from the NATO members after the missile launches from Syria, none of those would be an option if Israel had made any act of aggression against Iran. So in these views alone, I show the vision and deliberation Ehud Barak seems to lack even before he makes any headway towards a comeback, an issue I need not consider as I was never an Israeli elected official.
So if a non-Israeli can see this, even one who supports the total defence of Israel, what else is Ehud Barak not seeing and is that not the greater cause for concern?
It is the final quote in one article (Yahoo News) that gives us the heart of what should not matter “Barak ‘wants to remind people where he was, what he did, how important he was, how rational he was,’ said Reuven Hazan, a political scientist at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. ‘When Ashkenazi starts doing the political lecture circuit, Barak wants to be able to create and raise as many obstacles as possible.’” You see, as defence minister he was not that important, if push comes to shove, as a short term Prime Minister either Benjamin Netanyahu or Ariel Sharon would have surpassed him, as a defence minister he was passable, but in that light, both Meir Dagan and Tamir Pardo could have done his job too. Although in that light, Meir Dagan should have (if I noticed it correctly) gone slightly lighter on the pastries, he is likely to become his own worst enemy. I am willing to accept that this is the consequence of having a quick meeting at Gal’s bakery in Haifa every now and then.
In all this, the centre remains, Ehud Barak has been in a fortunate position, he was not unimportant for Israel. He was a civil servant, surpassed by many in their dedication to the defence of the state of Israel, in all this former Defence Minister Ehud Barak forgot that his biggest enemy was his own ego, a mistake that the media will take advantage of in the happiest method possible. The people of Israel and of other nations need to consider that Iran is, was and shall remain a danger to Israel. Knowing this is the most important detail here. What the press ignored is that possible aggressive actions would have been considered. Any nation, with any level of defence will ALWAYS consider an aggressive option, it is the quality of both its military and politicians at large to decide when such actions can no longer be avoided. As we see in the past, Israel never had to result to an all-out attack on Iran, which does not mean that this will not happen, it only means that when it does happen, no other alternative remained available. This is exactly why NATO must consider its actions in Northern Israel, for the mere reason to keep any offensive alternative at bay.
What a shame former Defence Minister Ehud Barak never realised this.