The Sons of Light have been waiting for the dramatic twist in the Holyland trial for quite some time. They have had to sustain a barrage of insults from the Sons of Darkness for well over seven years, but the moment has finally arrived. They were up against the high and mighty. Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's PR machine mocked and besmirched them. His attorney, Roy Blecher, called Shula Zaken, Olmert's former bureau chief and codefendant, a "liar." Blecher treated the courtroom as if it was his own backyard until the presiding Judge David Rozen told him his conduct was unbecoming. They had to counter former Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann and the like, who were singularly focused on undermining the High Court of Justice and its offshoots. They had to withstand the attacks of in-house reporters who, despite the long trail of solid evidence, tried to defend Olmert by zooming in on anything that could cast doubt on his culpability, and they had to fight back against two major news outlets who rallied behind Olmert. Only on Wednesday did Channel 2's Amnon Abramovich finally concede that "when people speak of Olmert's political career, they should use the past tense." And then there were Olmert's die-hard loyalists, like former cabinet member Yosef (Tommy) Lapid and journalist Amnon Dankner -- both no longer with us -- and the leaders of various organizations who invited him to speak at prestigious academic conferences as if he had never been found guilty of breach of trust in the Investment Center Affair, as if he was not a defendant in the Holyland trial, as if he didn't carry such heavy baggage everywhere he went. There were also tycoons and ministers who waged a defense. He had many proxies in politics, and they were always connected to the super-rich. All the above are at least partially responsible for Shula Zaken's decision to stonewall and stand by her former boss. That changed only this week, when she agreed to testify again, having reportedly agreed to plead out the case and divulge what really happened. Can Zaken deliver? Can she stand independently rather than act like the enslaved woman in rabbinical lore who must do her master's bidding? She could still have cold feet and revert to her past behavior. She missed the boat, but she might still hold on to the railing and shout the truth she has kept inside all these years, the truth she tried, unsuccessfully, to rid herself of. She failed to dispose of the truth primarily because Olmert and his underlings in the media and in big business (including the super-rich) have looked down on her with hubris, the way they look down on all their detractors. (Any time they come in for criticism, they call it "pathetic.") Zaken could take the stand again. Her withheld testimony might be considered admissible. Olmert's banker friends, who could be seen standing behind him on Channel 2 Wednesday, might remain his allies, but the earthquake that shook Israeli society this week will continue to generate deafening aftershocks. The battle is part of the ongoing war between the Sons of Darkness and the Sons of Light, the few vs. the many, those who continue to march along the path of the righteous vs. those who embraced money and its dark side. This battle can have a major impact on our society. Its importance extends far beyond what the good, the bad and the ugly did in the various corruption scandals. We must make sure there is a denouement that would put all the corruption trials behind us. Defendants should not be allowed to abuse the court system by dragging on legal proceedings endlessly. If Zaken wants to testify again and if the judge agrees to revisit her testimony, then the parties should convene promptly, without Olmert's shticks and without his lawyers' stall tactics. Eight years ago, the police began scrutinizing Olmert. Investigators have since had to deal with a deluge of frustrating setbacks and ongoing ridicule. "Thus does the way of the wicked prosper" (Jeremiah 12:1), they were told. Others urged them to stop tilting at windmills and warned them that they would not succeed. They had to win over colleagues who rolled their eyes in disbelief. For me, the fact that the final wall of denial has been breached is a source of great satisfaction, on a personal level. But while we may have won the battle, we haven't won the war. The latest development has generated great optimism. It provides an encouraging feeling that if you remain true to your convictions and if you adopt an uncompromising stance, you may very well reach the light at the end of the tunnel, not just advance toward it. That is, so long as we do not falter and so long as there is no deliberate sabotage. When all is said and done, we will have to come to terms with the sad reality that a person like Olmert used to be at the helm of the Jewish state; that he was very close to bending the rule of law; that he was a hair's breath away from staying on top. Will we be able to claim that justice had prevailed once the dust settles? Things are definitely looking better now, although nothing is guaranteed.