Livni no less guilty

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni boasts an important advantage: As opposed to many of Kadima's members, she is apparently unconnected to any corrupt affairs. Yet does this fact make her suitable for her post, and moreover, a worthy candidate to replace Ehud Olmert, once he becomes a former prime minister in a few months?

An examination of many of her declarations in her current post leads to a negative answer.

For example, she repeatedly voices her support for the establishment of a Palestinian state West of the Jordan River, a move that involves the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Jews from their homes, an IDF withdrawal, and further proof to those unconvinced yet that terrorism pays off.

Unfortunately, she is not the only one who failed to draw the appropriate conclusions from previous instances where we ran away – from Lebanon and Gaza - and the immense prices we pay as a result in every aspect of our lives.

Yet, as opposed to others – and this is particularly grave when the words are uttered by the foreign minister – Livni adds a baseless argument: That same Palestinian state will be used for resettling Arab refugees who left the Land of Israel.

One cannot explain the need to withdraw from Judea and Samaria using demographic arguments – the fear of an Arab majority west of the Jordan – and at the same time allow the entry of millions of Muslims into Judea and Samaria, that is, create that same dangerous Arab majority.

As foreign minister she must realize that any entry by Arabs into the western Land of Israel, whether within the Green Line or into the enemy state whose establishment she espouses, constitutes a death sentence to the Jewish state.

In another context, Livni attacks and disqualifies Iran's president, among other things because he is a Holocaust denier. Yet Holocaust denial does not constitute for her an obstacle to meetings with another Holocaust denier, Palestinian leader Abbas. A denier is a denier regardless of who he is. It is difficult and illogical to use this severe argument in an inconsistent manner.

The forgiving attitude to Abbas is also manifested through a different context: Since Oslo, PLO and Fatah members who received a "kosher certificate" from Shimon Peres and his people, have been considered to be good terrorists who we should be talking to and even assisting in their struggle against the bad terrorists, Hamas for example.

Ignoring the fact that a considerable part of the terror directed at Israelis, and many of its victims, came from the PLO/Fatah – and I'm talking about the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades and the Tanzim, which are subordinated to that same Holocaust denier – does not disqualify the man in Livni's eyes.

Blatantly immoral act

The Olmert-Livni Israel is also committing a blatantly immoral act: Risking IDF troops in the war against the bad terrorists, while using them as the casualties needed to establish a state for the good terrorists. According to the false Oslo perception, the good terrorists were committed to fighting the bad ones on our behalf.

The implication of Livni's policy is that Israel will be fighting the bad terrorists…in order to boost the good terrorists, which are led by a Holocaust denier. In this regards she's more like Peres than Peres himself.

Livni's unsuitability for the job could also be seen in the manner in which she referred to Security Council Resolution 1701, which led to the end of the recent war in Lebanon. Livni views the resolution as an important diplomatic achievement, but where's the achievement?

The abducted soldiers remained in the hands of their kidnappers – is the Ron Arad affair happening against? - While Hizbullah is quickly rehabilitating and rearming, under the umbrella of a "strong" international force and a Lebanese army that deployed in the south.

Was the war's objective to bring an incapable and unmotivated army – with many of Nasrallah's men joining it – to our northern border, that is, tie Israel's hands and make required actions against Hizbullah more difficult?

Many calls have been for the immediate resignation of Olmert, Peretz, and Halutz. So far, Livni has been able to detach herself from these demands. Yet the failure of Israeli foreign policy, despite the extensive freedom to act granted to Israel at the outset of the war, is no less severe than the failures of her colleagues.

A credible, full state inquiry – which cannot be avoided – is not meant to roll heads, but rather, to draw lessons objectively and prepare for the continuation of the war.

However, the failures of Olmert, Peretz and Livni – yes, Livni as well – are clear and their resignation should not await the inquiry's results. This resignation is not required as a form of punishment, but rather, is based on unsuitability for the post.