[Late in March, 2006, just before the Israeli elections, I accompanied my son to the bus which would take him to IDF basic training. En route, on Jaffa Road, I met Amir Peretz campaigning and asked him about his program for Israeli security. He took my hand, held it tightly and said, with TV cameras filming, that he had no idea about any matter relating to Israeli security. Pressing him again, I asked about his stand about security threats to Israel. Peretz was adamant and screamed that there are Israeli generals in his party who know about security – not him. DB]

Ehud Olmert spoke truthfully when, by proxy of his aides, he accused Amir Peretz of having implicitly encouraged the rioting at the Western Wall plaza. The publication of his letter to the prime minister about delaying the work at the Mughrabi Gate was, in the prime minister’s view, proof of the defense minister’s reckless behavior, which was geared to win the Arab votes in the Labor Party primary in May

But what about following through? If that is the way Peretz is-and indeed he is-then what is Olmert waiting for? Why does he not oust him from the Defense Ministry? What is he waiting for? For another Intifada to erupt? And then Olmert won’t understand why people say that he took a cynical course of action and that he preferred political convenience over the nation’s welfare.

Let us remove all doubt: it was not Ehud Barak who was responsible for the Intifada, nor was it Ariel Sharon in his visit to the Temple Mount in 2000, and nor is it Peretz now. It is clear Palestinian incitement. This time too, when there isn’t even a single Israeli Arab who genuinely suspects that the government wants to damage el-Aksa Mosque, and there isn’t even a single minority leader who has the courage to tell his public that truth.

Peretz’s motives are unacceptable, and Olmert needs to choose between empty prattle and a measure that is crucial to national security. He needs to oust Peretz. Not because of the content of his letter, but because he was indiscreet at even the most sensitive security meetings.

We are talking about a delusional defense minister. A defense minister who threatens to go to the attorney general against his own government instead of resigning from it when he finds its ways unacceptable. The farce will peak when Peretz petitions the High Court of Justice against the defense minister. He’s capable of doing that.

Olmert bears more responsibility than Peretz because he did not heed Ehud Barak’s warning that one day he was liable to wake up in the Middle East to find himself faced with a war, and to look to his side only to find Peretz there as his partner; he bears more responsibility because he has kept Peretz in his position, both because of an erroneous calculation and as a result of immoral considerations.

Erroneous? Because of the high probability that replacing Peretz with either Barak or Ami Ayalon will not cause the Labor Party to bolt from the coalition. There will be a bit of noise, and all of the ministers will happily remain in place with their Volvos but without Peretz. Is there absolute certainty that the Labor Party will remain in the coalition without Peretz? Of course not. In life one has to take reasonable risks. All the more so when the alternative options of the Likud and Binyamin Netanyahu are quite acceptable as well, and there are other coalition possibilities on the horizon.

Immoral? Because of a number of reasons. A government whose prime minister does not speak with his defense minister should be indicted-publicly, not criminally-for breach of trust. An ongoing situation in which Peretz chose to send a letter to Olmert by fax because they do not even discuss security-related issues with one another is not merely a iniquity and a sin. It is a national crime.

Not only because of the implied, unintentional support that Peretz gave to the Islamic Movement, but because in the current state of affairs it is impossible to choose a worthy candidate to serve as the director general of the Defense Ministry. Who would agree to be appointed for two weeks? For two months? David Ivri and Amos Yaron survived a number of various defense ministers. It is a position that requires continuity. No serious individual will tie his fate to that of Peretz.

Olmert cannot hope that the Winograd Committee will pull the chestnuts out of the fire for him. Because if the committee shows the integrity that is expected of it-and its members are capable of that-then he is going to emerge more beaten than Peretz. There is no other possibility.

It is true that Olmert needs to resign. Without an appointed investigative committee. Without the committee that he tried to form under Nahum Admoni. He failed in the war. Had he taken responsibility he would have swept out with him Peretz and Dan Halutz as well and would have saved the agonized security establishment half a year of deliberation. But reality is otherwise. In keeping with the rules of democracy, it is within his power to dismiss a minister but not the other way around. Therefore, as the lesser of all evils, he needs to act to bring about the essential parting from Peretz.

Tarrying on this issue is to add insult to injury. A decision to fire Peretz here and now will cast a wee bit of light in the governmental darkness and will give Olmert what he needed so in these past few months: credit.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR