Failure of a shady deal
Olmert is guilty because he put the army in inexperienced, non professional hands. Peretz is guilty because he said 'yes' due to personal, political and career related motives
The atmosphere was heavy and rife with suspicion. Peretz wanted the finance ministry, Olmert refused outright. Peretz insisted. Olmert sensed that Peretz had been offended, sure that he was not taking Peretz seriously, that Olmert thought Peretz was inadequate and his capabilities limited.
And then Olmert pulled out a typical Olmert card: he offered Peretz a more important, more respected position then that of the finance minister: He offered him the defense ministry.
That's how Olmert imagined he would solve the ego crises and Peretz' "inferiority complex." From that point, he would set the labor party chairman up with a massive social-economic portfolio, with lots of authority that would obviously meet Peretz' expectation with full satisfaction.
But his gamble backfired; Peretz surprised him and said "yes." He said "yes" although he doesn't have a clue about defense matters. He said a big "yes", because his blinded advisors assured him that the defense ministry portfolio was the surest route to the prime minister's seat.
Shady business
On Thursday April 27th 2006, the coalition agreement between Kadima and the Labor parties was signed. The next day, which was a Friday, I met Olmert at his office at the Minister of Industry, Trade and Labor - he was still the acting prime minister at the time.
What do you have to say about the agreement? Olmert asked. It has the strong odor of a shady business, I answered. It appeared as though two power hungry individuals had taken over the country. At the top of the pyramid stood a man who got there simply because he was second in line, and the other due to a parade of fraud. Now they were distributing the spoils to their hearts' content.
Olmert and Peretz (Photo: Ofer Amram)
You know all to well that Peretz is not suited to the post of defense minister. You will always be associated with the stain of his appointment. This blemish will be yours because you initiated it, you offered him the post, and no he didn't extort it from you in tough coalition negotiations.
You didn't want to give him the finance portfolio, not under any circumstances, because you wanted to keep it in your own hands, and so you appointed some Sancho Panza servant who would obey your every order, a loyal bearer of arms such as Avraham Hirchson, for example.
It scares me to think that someone who is inexperienced in defense matters will be in charge of my safety and will inevitably have to make fateful decisions within his position as defense minister.
You are exaggerating, said the acting prime minister "the really important decisions are made by me." And when did you become such an expert on security matters? I asked and changed the subject.
Three months later…
"Look what fell upon me after three months in the post," Amir Peretz said to me this week. You're to blame; I answered him, because you accepted the post of defense minister when you knew that you weren't suited for the job.
Peretz' appointment is a shady deal that went wrong. He and Olmert are full partners, who are now stuck with the responsibility of this shady deal like a pair of Siamese twins: Olmert because he invented it and Peretz because he eternalized it.
Olmert is guilty because he put the IDF in inexperienced, non professional hands. Peretz is guilty because he said yes because of personal, political and career related motives. He agreed to take the post although he knew it wasn't the right man for the job. He is the wrong man in the wrong place. There were other areas where he could have been more suitable, where he could have contributed more.
These two leaders committed the sin of national irresponsibility and they are both equally guilty. Today Olmert and Peretz are entwined, tied to each other, showering compliments upon each other, praising the wonderful cooperation between them, while presenting an outward picture of perfect harmony.
Behind closed doors, their anger and hatred lashes out at each other, but they have no choice other than to present a "united front" because one can bring about the defeat of the other. Mutual accusations would bring them both down.
Lack of security background
The last war provided much evidence that Israel cannot bear a situation in which the prime minister and the defense minister both lack security backgrounds. At least one of them, preferably the defense minister should have the military experience and the tools to professionally examine the generals' plans.
In the past, during Sharon, Barak and Rabin's days when the IDF laid out a war plan in front of the defense or the prime minister, they were thoroughly strategically and tactically, scrutinized. Each option would require an alternative, for every possible failure the army would have to present the next step.
When chief of staff Ehud Barak presented a military operation to Rabin for approval, he was required to answer hundreds of questions, to hear dozens of comments and to go through long hours of hazing.
It is a well known fact that the army always presents several options, including some which are extremely far fetched. The army wants to receive negative answers as well – as long as the proposal presented bears the presenter's name.
Unequipped to say "no"
Peretz doesn't have the knowledge or the experience to say "no" to the army, not professionally nor with reasoned argument. It's not his field of expertise. In social and employment arenas Peretz would have Barak running around in circles. When it comes to matters of military and security – every minister in today's cabinet knows just as much as Peretz does, or more than him.
Olmert is also a beginner, he also knows little about moving forces and the power of fire. As is the case with every civilian prime minister, he requires the filtering of a seasoned defense minister, because a sharp mind and quick thinking are not enough.
Olmert and Peretz are not responsible for all the mishaps of this war. They are not guilty for the IDF senior command's failure to be prepared for the war and the way it was conducted. But they are not entirely free of guilt and they both bear the sin of haste and arrogance.
Oh, how they would like to see this sorry affair fall on the army's shoulders, or on the chief of staff's shoulders. When Dan Halutz 'stocks' affair broke they thought the fire had been diverted from them, they hoped the chief of staff would resign because of his folly, and perhaps the foreboding shadow of a mission of inquiry would now disappear.
'Keeping mum'
On Sunday of this week they kept mum. The prime minister remained silent and so did the defense minister. They let the chief of staff burn at the stake alone. Let it be said: The chief of staff did something stupid, but the poisoned arrows flying in his direction alluding to "internal information," "profit making", "corruptions" and what not, are doing him a terrible injustice.
There's absolutely nothing to these accusations besides settling of accounts by politicians who jumped at the chance to gain a headline in the newspaper while dancing on the corpse, and by anonymous division commanders who have a butcher's knife aimed at their own throats for their failures in this war.
Olmert and Peretz stuck a knife in Halutz' back from the word go, but for 24 hours we didn't hear a word from the prime minister or the defense minister. Only on Monday, when it became apparent that the chief of staff didn't intend to step down, did Olmert and Peretz mumble a few words in support of the IDF chief of staff.
That same day the defense minister announced the establishment of a committee that would investigate the military's conduct during the war. The politicians were out of the range.
Another shady deal in the making
So Peretz set himself up a committee, Olmert announced that such a move was within his authority as defense minister, and they both think this compromise will postpone the establishment of a state commission of inquiry. It's just another shady deal in the making.
All those responsible for this war's mishaps must be held accountable, both in the political and military echelons. Everyone. Even if this story ends with a political happy end, i.e. the Lebanese army will emerge as a courageous army and our border will remain silent for the next 40 years.
But this will be thanks to the pilots, the troops, the commanders on the ground and the good sheriff in the White House. It will be because of them and despite our political and military leadership, who hopped from one screw-up to another and who owe us an explanation.
Commission of inquiry may not be best solution
I am not sure the right solution is a commission of inquiry; it will only give rise to divisions of smart lawyers, legal jargon, thousands of documents, hundreds of witnesses and a festival lasting months and even years. Perhaps, we would be better off, if the reserve soldiers who boarded the tanks in Lebanon would march on the Knesset holding banners.
They could be joined by those who sat out the war in the bomb shelters, the displaced persons from the north and all those who identify with them. Their voices bear unique power because they are dipped in blood and suffering and perhaps the protest and the rage will make the walls of the Knesset tremble and bring about results.
Perhaps this is the way, and perhaps there's a better way, but we must not remain silent. Otherwise we all become partners of this shady deal.
Rafi Ginat is the editor in chief of Yedioth Ahronoth
