The dramatic denouement of Olmert
The latest twist in former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's legal saga could not have been more climactic. The brutality and pain of this denouement -- as a result of his former bureau chief Shula Zaken's turning on him and signing a plea bargain with the state -- could not have been greater.
This time around, it was not the late state witness Shmuel Dechner, whom Olmert called "a crook," who sent barbs Olmert's way; nor was it American businessman Morris Talansky, whom Olmert called "senile"; and it was not former Attorney-General Menachem Mazuz or former State Attorney Moshe Lador who had the gall to "depose an incumbent prime minister." It was not former State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss, former police investigator Yaakov Borovsky and former Accountant-General Yaron Zelekha, who have had to endure Olmert's rhetorical mudslinging time and again.
No, this assault was an inside job. Olmert was hit by someone who had access to his emotional core, who once adored him and was once fiercely loyal.
Everything was fine as long as Zaken was willing to take the fall for him, as long as she was willing to forfeit her future, as long as she steered clear of the plea bargain she was offered (on the advice of the "black raven"), as long as she vehemently defended him and stayed true to the vow she took before her father never to hurt Olmert.
Olmert hit the lecture circuit, appearing in every possible forum: at Amos Yadlin's Institute for National Security Studies, at Tel Aviv University, at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The most outspoken apologist for Olmert was the founder of the Israel Democracy Institute, Dr. Arye Carmon, who penned an embarrassing article in praise of Olmert's leadership as prime minister. Olmert gave speeches, lectured others and gave sage advice as the voice of morals and ethics, adding insult to injury.
But it was all over once Zaken started talking. Even his most staunch supporters could no longer roll their eyes and say he was innocent. Yes, he is innocent until proven guilty -- but his public conduct has been unacceptable, and the public has had enough. The constellation he and Zaken are in has already resulted in his conviction in the court of public opinion. And let's not forget the actual verdict.
The seven-year war he has waged in his criminal cases deserves our respect. He showed his mettle. His strength lies in his ability to hide his grief and hold back his tears, in his ability to convince others that he was wronged by people who were out to get him.
When former cabinet minister Yosef Lapid was on his deathbed, Olmert, then prime minister, came to visit. Olmert told him that when he passed away he would have left behind an honest and innocent leader. Everyone present shed a tear. What's left of that? His rage led him to attack Zaken, even as he continued to crisscross the globe and forge new business relations. But his blindsiding of Zaken would ultimately run its course. He overplayed his hand when he got under Zaken's skin.
Zaken was always there when he struck a dirty political deal and schemed. He would occasionally direct his political mischief at her. But at a certain point she just had enough. This culminated with the deal on Thursday. She finally mustered enough courage and applied the same tactics against him.
His undoing was a product of his own complacency. Has he forgotten how intelligent she is? Has her agility and practical approach to life somehow been lost on him? Has he failed to appreciate her political acumen? She was present throughout his career -- as cabinet minister, as Jerusalem mayor, when he rooted for Beitar Jerusalem Football Club at the Teddy Stadium.
And last month she finally saw an opening. Zaken, like Samson who had his eyes put out but nevertheless used his last chance to fight, seized this opportunity.
When she broke her silence, they began locking horns. Her son took to Facebook to hint at what was still to come, but Olmert just hunkered down. The former premier did not listen to his advisers, who said he should cut his losses and stop fighting. The now-outspoken Zaken has turned into what the 17th of Tamuz was for biblical Jerusalem. On that Hebrew date, the walls of the city were breached. If he does not shift gears, his situation will deteriorate even further. Like Jerusalem, he will have experienced destruction, a Tisha B'Av.
This column made it into one of the High Court of Justice briefs last week, when Olmert's lawyers argued against a petition filed by the Movement for Quality Government in Israel, which wanted to force the state to sign a plea bargain with Zaken. I was surprised to learn that Olmert's lawyers echoed my column, yet they forgot to cite their source.
But Olmert did not heed my advice. Had he done so, he could have cut his losses and possibly avoided the humiliating setback with Zaken. This is how a bad day can turn into Tisha B'Av. Authors, psychologists, analysts and politicians will continue to deal with this saga even when its main protagonists exit the stage and try to put their careers back on track. This unprecedented legal drama is still plagued by its many unknowns. We still don't know who played what role and when.
No mark of Cain
A woman filed a police complaint accusing Energy and Water Minister Silvan Shalom of sexual harassment. The police made the right call when they launched a investigation and questioned him under caution, even though the alleged incident took place some 15 years ago. This is how such cases should be handled. The accuser has every right to exact revenge and torpedo his presidential bid. Vengeance should not be glorified, but it is nevertheless part and parcel of who we are as humans.
That said, the media's handling of this case has been flawed. One of Channel 2's commentators said that despite the lack of evidence and statute of limitations, Shalom will have to carry this mark of Cain wherever he goes. The complaint makes no mention of evidence. There are no recordings.
Yes, Shalom has no evidence that could make this case go away, despite the bizarre depictions in the complaint, but the accuser has no proof either.
A lack of circumstantial evidence usually results in the case being closed, with no exceptions. This is one of those cases -- in fact it is a classic example. Shalom should not be stigmatized for the rest of his life, even if the facts of the case are consistent with the complaint. Only Shalom, his accuser and God know what really happened.
The women's forum that has helped the woman file her complaint despite the expired statute of limitations should have also told her to give Shalom a warning. She should have told Shalom that she would only complain if he declared his candidacy for president. He should have had the chance to let go of his dream and avoid this humiliating setback.
Of course, before setting this condition, the woman would have had to make sure it would not be construed as blackmail.
טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו