Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon is a man of truth, who sees reality for what it is. He is one who prefers to acknowledge the truth, painful as it may be, rather than ignore it and he is usually right. He does not mince words: the United States is weak and a nation that demonstrates weakness loses, which is why President Barack Obama's America is declining. The U.S. is not doing Israel any favors either, and for $3 billion in defense aid it has an aircraft carrier from Metula in the north to Eilat in the south. Ya'alon's words were right and true, but they have fallen on deaf ears in the White House, and there are two reasons why they should not have been said in the first place: Firstly, such criticism of the American administration weakens Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's argument that the Palestinians are the ones undermining the peace process. Ya'alon's criticism of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry stems from the former's belief that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is not truly interested in a peace deal with Israel, but his reasonable supposition is unnecessarily pushing the Americans to sympathize with the Palestinians. Secondly, right now Ya'alon's statement might have bolstered his public position and played well among Likud supporters, but such things do not last forever. The Israeli public has always appreciated leaders who have stood their ground versus the U.S. -- Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion's declaration of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, Prime Minister Menachem Begin's 1981 decision to destroy a nuclear reactor in Iraq, and then-opposition MK Yitzhak Rabin's adamant objection to Israel's concessions in Sinai in the early 1980s -- but all of them, without exception, have been careful not to sever the link between Israel and the U.S. It is not just that the public believes that ruffling America's feathers is bad for Israel's national security. In the moment of truth, the average Israeli will turn his back on a leader or an MK who triggers a full-blown confrontation with the U.S., which, for the most part, is an especially agreeable superpower. Anyone who insists on seeing such a confrontation through usually pays a hefty price, because as agreeable and generous as the U.S. is, any such confrontation makes it vindictive and it neither forgives nor forgets very easily. Washington has no qualms about informing Israel who it will and will not work with and Israel always complies. Ya'alon would be wise to remember what happened to Dr. Aviem Sella, who still has an indictment pending against him in the U.S. for his minuscule part in the Jonathan Pollard affair. At the time, Rabin attempted to defend him but he had to back down -- and he was not the only one. The reality is that in any serious conflict with the U.S., any Israeli prime minister would rather leave Ya'alon out in the cold than risk Israel's excellent relationship with the Pentagon. Let Zaken speak Some two weeks before the verdict in the Holyland trial, which has seen former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert face severe corruption charges, is due to be rendered, we have learned that Olmert, together with former Mossad director Meir Dagan and former IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. (ret.) Dan Halutz, has set up a new company. The timing of the announcement is puzzling. Naturally, if Olmert is acquitted from the grave white-collar charges that have been brought against him he is free to pursue any business venture he desires, but what if he is convicted? Halutz refused to provide any explanation and Dagan said that he respects Olmert, adding that he was innocent until proven otherwise and if he were to be found guilty, there would be plenty of time to decide what to do. But this is not how things are perceived from the sidelines. It seems that with the verdict nearing, Olmert has sought to relay a "business as usual" message to Judge David Rosen, by acting like nothing is happening. While Olmert's benefits from the timing of the announcement are clear, it is highly unlikely that such news would sway the judge one way or another. Dagan said the venture was completely legal. That may be true but it is ill-advised nonetheless. It is a defiant move that illustrates a problematic norm: Olmert is pursuing business ventures while his defense team is sparing no effort to stop his former bureau chief Shula Zaken from testifying against him. The Movement for Quality Government in Israel has filed a High Court of Justice petition seeking to compel the State Attorney's Office to call Zaken to the stand, citing that the public has a right -- an obligation -- to know. Zaken herself has said that she would be willing to testify if she was to be subpoenaed, and Olmert retorted by saying she was the corrupt one. Then again, a sad case such as this needed some comic relief. This latest twist of events is curious. On the one hand, Zaken has asked for nothing in exchange for her testimony, but on the other hand she has not offered it voluntarily. She will testify only if she is subpoenaed. So what is stopping the prosecution? There is a public and moral interest in letting her speak.
