Before Shula Zaken makes her way to the Lahav 433 Major Crimes Unit and reveals everything she has on her former boss and co-defendant in the Holyland trial, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, she must overcome two obstacles. Only then will she be able to deliver the goods on the Rishon Tours double-billing affair, the cash-stuffed envelopes from Moshe Talansky, or the alleged bribes given by the late state witness Shmuel Dechner. Perhaps even on other scandals.

If, God forbid, an Edgar Allan Poe-type raven taps on her door again, perhaps when she feels weak, it might exploit her anxiety over having to testify and the cross-examination she would have to endure. Last year, Olmert's attorneys got to her and she aborted a possible plea bargain. This could happen again. The second obstacle has to do with other interested parties. She could get an offer she can't refuse, to borrow from "The Godfather."

But if neither of these two scenarios materializes, she might have what it takes to retake the stand and withstand the attacks in the pro-Olmert dailies. Serving a one-year sentence as part of a plea bargain is better than the uncertainty and anxiety that come with being locked up in prison for four or five years. At her age, such a period is no small thing, considering the average life expectancy.

Things were different when the plea bargain was first offered about a year ago. The State Attorney's Office was eager to strike a deal. It would have probably inked the agreement even before she was called to testify. Then, in light of pressure from pro-Olmert parties, she got cold feet. But the lay of the land has since changed. Prosecutors believe Zaken and Olmert's guilt has been proven. They feel a deal is not a must. Whether or not a deal materializes depends on whether she can play the courting game.

If she is keen on pleading out the case, if she offers new information, and -- most importantly -- if her new testimony has a good chance of swaying the case in the state's favor -- she will be declared a state witness. She will get almost the same deal she was offered during the last round of talks, only this time she would have to sign off on a one-year sentence (rather than 11 months). She would also have to tell prosecutors what she knows before the terms of the deal are finalized. Zaken should sign the deal, even though it will come at a price. If she chooses to pass up on a deal she will never be able to turn the tide in her trial. She has nothing to fear.

If, after she the police question her again, prosecutors decide against a deal, the transcripts will remain sealed and never make their way to the courtroom. She has nothing to lose. That is why, after deliberating this matter at length, she will show up at the Lahav 433 headquarters. That is why a deal has a good chance of materializing.

True, Tel Aviv District Judge David Rozen might refuse to hear Zaken's withheld testimony. If the case reaches the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Asher Grunis might also render Zaken's new testimony inadmissible. But both scenarios are unlikely.

It all boils down to whether Zaken comes off as a credible witness and whether her version of events seems reasonable. If she succeeds, she will have let us in on the underbelly of the Olmert corruption empire. Her contribution to civics lessons at Israeli high schools will have been unmatched. Zaken can shed light on what is usually glossed over by the court. She is duty-bound to do so. Time is of the essence.

טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו