Is smoking good for health?

You have said what a great many people think, myself obviously included, that Ehud Barak is a danger to the State of Israel. The man is a serial bungler, without any notion of strategic thinking, a man whose every decision has harmed the country. Ehud Barak should not be in ANY position of authority, that he is Defense Minister is insane.

Give credit where credit is due.

This article is spot on. Barak is a danger to the state of Israel Natanyahu made his greatest mistake in keeping Barak in his position Was it just a 'jobs for the boys?' choice. Nayanyahu needs to be pursuaded to replace him and quickly, otherwise he too will loose popularity. What about it, 'Likud Rebels!?'

hopefully Bibi will read your words...

The list of Barak's 'failed' accomplishments is an absolute joke. On the first intifada, it was hardly his responsibility. He was Deputy Chief of the General Staff under a right-wing government. He was not Chief of Staff, minister of defense or prime minister. To place the entire blame on him is an absolute opportunistic attack that has no merit. There was a systemic failure to deal with violent but not militia-like tactics by the Israeli system, yet this journalist thinks that is all Barak's fault! How desperately pathetic! There was also a mention of the second intifada. While it is true that Barak, in his few months as PM before Sharon's election did not finish off the second intifada, this is again a particularly foolish comment to make. After all, it was Barak who pushed for the border fence, that is now credited with reducing attacks (such as suicide bombers) by 99% or so. Yet the right-wing refused this, Sharon, Mofaz, the Likud, the settlers, ALL REFUSED the fence for years. Yet now they claim credit for it's success. Yet it was the left, and Barak in particular, who spoke about it YEARS before them. YEARS. How many people would be alive today from the over 1,000 killed if they had listened to him earlier? How many? The writer is no journalist, the writer is either an opinionated person with no historical knowledge, or a person with a vested interest in rewriting history. In either case the article has no merit as it is utterly false! I am not arguing for or against Barak based on his actions today, but this article makes me sick and it is part of the problem in Israeli society... selective historical memory leading to false assumptions about what is happening now or will happen in the future. It seems people are hellbent to rewrite history to suit their needs, and then fail to understand why current events turn out different than expected.. this is perfectly demonstrated by this historically inaccurate (to say nicely) article, which can only lead to utterly false conclusions. You should be ashamed! Either stop being a journalist if you don't have the knowledge, or if you did and purposely mislead the reader, admit you are a politically motivated tool.

But why does labor keep him around? Have they no sense?

opportunist self opinionated snob.I think that covers it.

echange him with Bugi !!!

Not only did he fail to stop the 2nd intifada, he basically created it. he was one of th eGenerals behind Oslo , and the one sold to camp david. On the economic front he was also a massive disaster to israel: He cancelled a sale of weapons to China, which the US threatened to reduce $200M fromt he aid package - this cost Israel 300M in compensation to the Chinese, and also a lucrative market worht Billions which he basically tore up.

to Israelis and other living things. This is one of the few points on which I can agree with my neighbor Terry. I'm sure our ideas on replacing him are very different.

Even if you are right, Barak is still a miserable failure. He is internationally considered a war criminal because of Cast Lead, and you can't take Sultan Yaakoub, Lebanon retreat and Madhat Yussuf away from him. Dann gives Barak due credit for starting the Second Intifada. The reason Barak failed in stopping the Second Intifada is because he was a fool. When it started, he and Ben Ami sent police who killed 12 rioting Arab citizens. After that "success" he was paralyzed. Do you call the killing of the 12 a great success? As for the Fence. Everyone knows that it has reduced agriculture theft but has no effect on terror. Terror has been reduced because the IDF went back into Judea and Samaria. Now that Barak has removed checkpoints, you see an increase in terror.

the simple and only answer is NO only for himself

So he must be good for Israel (or at least for the leftist-secular-ashkenasi elite). Who can Ynet dare to write a barak critical article...

Ehud should resign now

"Universal Declaration of Human Rights:Art. 2"....no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political jurisdiction or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs...or other limitation of sovereignty"

Ehud Barak is not my cup of coffee, and I disagree with many of his past decisions, but all this article is about trying to take it personally on him. He is trustful and does what he thinks is better for the people and not for its own benefit. He is by far better than any other members of the LP; His speach is intelligent, his views respectable. In the near future his military experience will be indispensable. The LP is now a hornet nest and an ex-journalist, an illiterate, and the son of someone are no alternative to him. Who is the one hiding behind this article?

Moshe Dann wrote another excellent piece on Ehud Barak at Pajamas Media titled, ''Ehud Barak's Theater of the Absurd.'' http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ehud-baraks-theater-of-the-absurd/

Moshe Dann's analysis is right on target. If Barak thinks giving away more of Israel's land to the scoundrels will generate peace, he is definitely living in fantasyland. His knowledge of Islamist-Jihadism is zero. The fact is the problem is not about territory. It is about Islam and its Jihadism. The Islamist-Jihadists want to conquer the whole of Israel. Through Taqiyya (deception) and manipulations of the world, they are on a crusade to fulfill their Charter that calls for the destruction of Israel. Israel's only deterrence to its enemies is its strength. Only a strong Israel will stop the Islamist-Jihadist crusaders from chipping away Israel. Barak's recipe of appeasement and giving in to the demands of the wolves and tigers of the region will be disastrous for Israel.

But now he's just a useless waste of space who is dead jealous of the sexy and charismatic Gabi Ashkenazi. Gabi reminds Ehud of all his failures - and no-one wants to be reminded of that.

A lot of failures, a lot of mistakes. The pressure doesn't explain everything.

The answer to your question is no!

any way, thank you !

A military man is supposed to be ' steady in the saddle'. Instead barak runs around fretting and wimping like olmert and beilin, two faillures and weak knead cowards. He has this aurora of commando , an aura that bibi is under. Its not good. Yaalon is far better than barak. Barak's failure to bomb ramallah and his do nothing about the second intifidah to me is more about a failure of nerve and cowardice. Sharon and yaalon did what barak did not. Rumor has it that he was against the attack on syria's nuclear installation. Because of labor's 13 seats and barak being commando officer, bibi will not get rid of him.Its too bad for israel because barak is a lousy land general much like halutz was a lousy land general.