The relations between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his former bureau chief Shula Zaken have been strained for quite some time, but the public only recently saw just how complex this relationship was. Channel 2's Guy Peleg reported Monday that the two had an unpleasant encounter over the weekend, when they met at a private birthday party. "You threw me under the bus," Zaken told Olmert. Make no mistake, Zaken is not going to act. Her attorney is not going to ask the court to let her retake the stand so that she can tell the whole truth about what happened in Olmert's office. That ship has already sailed, never mind that she has dug herself into a hole and won't even try climbing out. That said, when Zaken's attorneys make their closing arguments next week, they won't pull any punches when they describe the way Olmert treated their client. She was offered a great plea bargain, but she opted instead to go to trial and defend her former boss. She refused to provided damning testimony in Olmert's first corruption trial -- once again, to protect him. This created an anomalous verdict: Zaken was convicted for her role in the double-billing scheme known as the Rishon Tours affair but Olmert walked, as if he had nothing to do with it, as if it was Zaken and her family, not the Olmerts, whose airfare was covered using questionable means. Zaken testified that she had received some 100,000 shekels ($28,000) from the now-deceased state witness Shmuel Dechner and that NIS 40,000 to NIS 60,000 of that sum was then handed over to Uri Messer, Olmert's confidant at the time. But in their defense brief, Olmert's lawyers said she did not tell truth. It will be interesting to watch who carries the day when the judge hands down his verdict. Without additional testimony from Zaken, Judge David Rozen's decision will be based only on what he has already heard in his courtroom. His ruling will not take into account what Zaken just recently told Olmert, nor will he be able to factor in what Zaken's son, Nadav, wrote online against Olmert's unfair treatment of his mother. (He said he would continue to voice his mother's grievances.) The judge will have to rely only on the official record. There is no point in dwelling over who was more credible on the stand. Rozen will study the case. He will deliberate, contemplate and decide. But you can't ignore the drama that unfolded. Olmert and Zaken were joined at the hip during his premiership, despite what the former premier would have you believe. "Can two walk together, except they be agreed-" (Amos 3:3). We all know they kept each other in the loop; you bet they did. Zaken had ample time to save her skin. In the end, she chose her friendship with Olmert over the truth, when she should have done the opposite, following the maxim attributed to Aristotle: "Plato is my friend, but truth is a better friend." But Zaken decided against this. That is her right, but it hurt her in the court of public opinion. But her conduct did not help Olmert either, even though things are going his way. He has done well financially ever since he left office; some segments of the public hold him in high regard. This stands in stark contrast to Zaken, who has been hunkering down at home, her credibility tarnished. As the trial concluded, he has realized that it would be convenient to distance himself from his former bureau chief, as if she did not save him in his first trial. Olmert has been playing dumb, as if he and Zaken were never close. He has shown some gratitude, but only because it was expected of him. I watch Olmert from a distance and keep thinking about what his conduct over the past eight years (as prime minister and afterward) says about the nature of friendship and camaraderie.
