Would universities like Yale and Harvard in the U.S., or Oxford and Cambridge in England, give a platform to an individual charged with serious white-collar offenses? No, but such is not the case in one enlightened country -- Israel.
On Sunday, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert spoke at the Institute for National Security Studies, which is affiliated with Tel Aviv University. Olmert gave a harsh speech in which he denounced Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's conduct vis-à-vis U.S. President Barack Obama on the Iranian nuclear issue. Regardless of the content of Olmert's speech, the fact that he was invited to speak at all was inappropriate. Whether it did so consciously or not, the prestigious INSS stood by Olmert, whose public life is currently hanging in the balance.
The basket of criminal charges against Olmert is diverse. While Olmert was convicted in the Jerusalem District Court for serious offenses, he was acquitted of most of the charges that he was indicted on. The State Attorney's Office appealed the acquittals, and the case is now before the Supreme Court.
Olmert is also on trial for a charge of bribery, part of the Holyland real estate affair, the largest corruption case in Israel's history.
For these reasons, it would be best for Olmert to focus on his legal battle to prove his innocence, and leave the public alone.
If it was only the INSS that was sticking with Olmert, one could turn a blind eye. The INSS is funded by Australian Jewish billionaire Frank Lowy, who is not only a friend of Olmert, but also the person whom Olmert wanted to see win the tender for the purchase of Bank Leumi. But the INSS is not alone. There are also other institutions willing to give Olmert a microphone.
At the heart of this matter is something that is unprecedented in Israeli history. Parts of the academic, business and even defense communities are allowing Olmert to signal on their behalf to the court that he is not a typical defendant. The message is "he's fine" and "he's one of us." Subconsciously, this could influence the verdict, and, if he is found guilty, the sentence.
Olmert has an interest in separating himself from other defendants. He wants the court to view his case differently than it does other cases involving matters of integrity. The fact that Olmert has the support of academics, tycoons and retired generals who are willing to act on his behalf in ways that violate social norms could help him get out of trouble with relative ease, even at this point. That is their goal, as if "nothing happened" and things are "business as usual."
In light of the Olmert case, what do people want from Bat Yam Mayor Shlomo Lahiani and Nazareth Illit Mayor Shimon Gapso? They have been charged for offenses identical or similar to those for which Olmert was charged. Judges have yet to delve into their cases, and yet Lahiani and Gapso are already supposed to step down? They still have more legitimacy than Olmert, so why should they give up their mayoral chairs?
More than anything, it is alarming that institutions would give accused criminals a tailwind of support.
טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו
