Ehud Barak: The Left Side of a Siamese Twin

by PAUL EIDELBERG

Since relativists see only grey, it’s psychologically difficult for them to believe wholeheartedly in their nation’s cause.

E
hud Barak is now advocating unilateral disengagement from Judea and Samaria. This may be deemed the left side of PM Netanyahu’s June 2009 endorsement of a Palestinian state.

Clinton, Arafat, Barak

Clearly, Ehud Barak has learned nothing from the consequences of Israel’s unilateral disengagement from Gaza—now called Hamastan, armed by Iran, an existential threat on Israel’s border. Nor should we forget Barak’s unilateral disengagement from Lebanon in 2000, which led to the 2006 Lebanon War, 121 IDF soldiers killed, 43 civilians dead, 33 seriously wounded, 68 moderately wounded, and 1,388 lightly wounded. This fiasco under Barak was a tailwind to murderous Arab terror across the Middle East, which blows on to this day and teaches our enemies that Jews are on the run in Palestine.

It’s imperative that the people of Israel know about the obtuse mentality of their Defense Minister, Israel’s most highly decorated soldier.

Ehud Barak holds a bachelor’s degree in physics and mathematics from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Generally speaking, one does not get a bachelor’s degree without having taken courses in the social sciences.

It so happens that the social sciences in the democratic world are permeated by the doctrine of moral relativism, also called moral equivalence. This doctrine seems to have influenced the curriculum of Israel’s Command and Staff College. I say this because the late Professor Y. Harkabi, a self-professed relativist, once headed that College. In fact, Harkabi, the mentor of Shimon Peres, also held the post of Director of Military Intelligence, and, like Peres, advocated a Palestinian state—the position of Ehud Barak. Now let’s connect more dots.

Ariel Sharon also attended the Command and Staff College, and he too was tainted by relativism. Thus, while Jews were being reduced to body parts by Arabs suicide bombers, then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said, in an April 2001 interview with Ha’aretz, that his son Omri taught him “not to think in terms of black and white.”

Since relativists see only grey, it’s psychologically difficult for them to believe wholeheartedly in their nation’s cause. This may explain why Harkabi’s book, Arab Attitudes to Israel—some 450 pages documenting the murderous hatred of Arab leaders—is dedicated to both Arabs and Jews! This is the mentality or madness underlying moral relativism (which I document at length in my book Demophreniaciting leading clinical psychologists).

Now, I ask, did moral relativism dull Sharon’s moral judgment regarding the PLO-Palestinian Authority? Did it influence his policy of self-restraint toward Arab terrorists? Did this doctrine—long rampant in America and manifested by anti-American academics—did this self-effacing doctrine hinder Sharon from publicly denouncing the PLO-Palestinian Authority as “evil”?

Let me digress for a moment. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not an avowed relativist. But is he inhibited by the pervasive influence of relativism in academia and in the media—both in Israel and America? Does this doctrine, which infects the entire democratic world, incline Netanyahu to negotiate with that cesspool of evil, the PLO-Palestinian Authority? Is not his policy of “reciprocity” a subtle manifestation of moral equivalence, hence a denial of evil—a denial that emasculates him or saps any righteous desire to quash that network of villains?

Contrast Ronald Reagan who referred to the Soviet Union as the “evil empire” and was therefore psychologically inclined and morally committed to bringing down that tyranny.

But I was speaking of Ehud Barak, who in an interview once said, “If I were a Palestinian at the right age, I would have joined one of the terrorist organizations at a certain stage.” Some may deem this the utterance of a fool, but it is quite consistent with moral relativism. Since this doctrine influences the mentality of prime ministers—the doctrine has tainted Barack Obama—may we not assume that it influences their policies: first the Peres orchestrated PLO-Israel Agreement of 1993, the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and now Ehud Barak’s endorsement of unilateral disengagement from Judea and Samaria?

In the Camp David Summit of July 2000, attended by U.S. President Bill Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, and Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, Barak offered to form a Palestinian State initially on 73% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10–25 years, the Palestinian state, he said, would expand to a maximum of 90-91% of the West Bank. He proposed that East Jerusalem, including including the holiest site to Judaism, the Temple Mount, would be run by a Palestinian civilian administration. Although the Summit came to naught, it revealed the unhinged as well as unJewish mentality of this Defense Minister.

(By the way, this groveling Defense Minister wanted Israel to apologize to Turkey, despite the latter’s complicity in the May 2010 Gaza flotilla incident.)

Add to the preceding evidence of Barak’s unhinged and unJewish mentality the fact that he supports the redeployment of Egyptian forces in the Sinai in contravention of the Israel-Egypt treaty of March 1979. It’s not enough to have a Defense Minister who failed to see that Hamas would overrun Gaza. He now fails to see the consequences of having the Muslim Brotherhood in the Sinai!

Ehud Barak is not only a mental pigmy: he is an existential danger to the State of Israel. I attribute this impossible state of affair to his boss, Benjamin Netanyahu, and to the system of coalition cabinet government that made these two men politically bonded Siamese twins.

http://i-ari.org/ehud-barak-the-left-side-of-a-siamese-twin/#.T95uLz5SQcg