What happened this week is so infuriating, so impertinent, that it stands out even in our familiar landscape of governmental irresponsibility.

On the near horizon, a de facto suspension of hostilities was taking shape. The Egyptians had made great efforts to turn it into an official cease-fire. The flame was already burning visibly lower. The launching of Qassams and Grads from the Gaza Strip into Israel had fallen from dozens a day to two or three.

And then something happened that turned the flame up high again: Undercover soldiers of the Israeli Army killed four Palestinians militants in Bethlehem. A fifth was killed in a village near Tulkarm.

The modus operandi left no doubt about the intention.

As usual, the official version was mendacious. The four, it was said, drew their weapons and endangered the life of the soldiers, who only wanted to arrest them, so they were compelled to open fire.

Anyone with half a brain knows that this is a lie. The four were in a small car on the main street of Bethlehem, the road that has joined Jerusalem and Hebron since British (or Turkish) times. They were indeed armed, but they had no chance at all of drawing their weapons. The car was simply sprayed with dozens of bullets.

That was not an attempt to make an arrest. That was an execution, pure and simple, one of those summary executions in which the Shin Bet fulfills the roles of prosecutor, judge and executioner.

Why where they killed? The Shin Bet did not hide the reason: Two of the four had participated in attacks in 2001 in which Israelis were killed.

The defense minister and his men endangered a cease-fire in order to avenge something that happened seven years ago.

It was obvious to all that the killing of Islamic Jihad militants in Bethlehem would cause the renewal of the Qassam launchings on Sderot. And so it happened. According to Barak himself, he was ready to risk Jewish lives today in order to take revenge on persons who may perhaps have shed blood years ago and have since given up their armed activity.

The emphasis is on the word “Jewish”. In his statement, Barak took care not to speak about persons “with blood on their hands”, but about those “with Jewish blood on their hands”.

The media did not demand that Olmert and Barak expose to the public the considerations that led them to adopt this decision, which concerns every person in Israel.

When the government does not disclose its intentions, we have no choice but to deduce its intentions from its actions. The government which decided on the killing in Bethlehem undoubtedly intended to torpedo the cease-fire. Why does it want to do so?

There are several possible kinds of cease-fire. The most simple is the cessation of hostilities on the Gaza Strip border. It is known that the army objects to that. They want to be free to “liquidate” from the air and raid on the ground. They want a one-sided cease-fire.

A limited cease-fire is impossible. Hamas cannot agree to it, as long as the blockade cuts the Strip off on all sides and turn life there into hell — not enough medicines, not enough food, the seriously ill cannot reach appropriate hospitals, the movement of cars has come to an almost complete standstill, no imports or exports, no production or commercial activity. The opening of all border crossings for the movement of goods is, therefore, an essential component of a cease-fire.

Our government is not willing to do that, because it would mean the consolidation of the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip.

Government sources hint that Abbas and his people in Ramallah also object to the lifting of the blockade — a malicious rumor, because it would mean that Abbas is conducting a war against his own people.

This week it was proven that the Islamic Jihad organization in Gaza cannot stand idly by while its members are killed in Bethlehem.

Hamas could not stand by in Gaza and enjoy the fruits of government if the Israeli Army were to kill Hamas militants in Nablus or Jenin. And, of course, no Palestinian would agree that the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are two separate entities.

A Gaza-only cease-fire would allow Barak to blow it to pieces at any moment by a Bethlehem-style provocation. This means that a real and durable cease-fire, which would create the necessary atmosphere for real peace negotiations, must include the West Bank, too. Olmert-Barak would not dream of agreeing to that. And as long as George Bush is around, there will be no effective pressure on our government.

Who is really in charge in Israel at this time?

This week’s events point to the answer: The man who makes the decisions is Ehud Barak, the most dangerous person in Israel, the very same Barak who blew up the Camp David conference and persuaded the entire Israeli public that “we have no partner for peace”.

2052 years ago today, on the Ides of March, Julius Caesar was assassinated. Ehud Barak sees himself as a latter-day local replica of the Roman general. He, too, would dearly want to report: “I came, I saw, I conquered.”

But the reality is rather different: He came, he saw, he destroyed.