A worthy successor

By Amir Oren Haaretz 10 January 2006
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/668211.html

Power, said Henry Kissinger, is the ultimate aphrodisiac. Kissinger used
this to explain why an expert - with a thick German accent - in the
convoluted nuances of nuclear deterrence became an object of desire for a
Hollywood blonde. Power, one can add upon consideration of Israeli politics,
is also the best antiseptic. Taking the reins of power retroactively cleans
all the stains and smells along the way.

The current model for this is Ehud Olmert, the frequency of whose meetings
with the police rivaled that of a Civil Guard volunteer. Olmert, in keeping
with the hymns of praise from his supporters, is indeed a worthy successor
to Ariel Sharon. Both have the tendency to enter the thicket of criminal
suspicions, as well as the ability to worm their way out of these suspicions
even if they are smeared with harsh words that would have caused a sensitive
citizen of good conscience to shut himself up in his home - but did not
interfere with them climbing onward and upward. When the dry facts, under
their signature, spoke against them, they both whipped out a similar
argument from the family of the "psychological element" that is necessary
for conviction: Those who were working under them - Omri Sharon, the Likud
treasury people - had hidden their deceptions from them.

This claim, of not knowing what is going on in the area for which the
individual is responsible, has to be a two-edged sword that cuts through the
criminal rope around the necks at the price of a fatal public stabbing. How
is anyone who does not manage to have control of the finances of an election
campaign - with the excuse of being engaged in campaigning and organizing
and trips - going to run a country? How is anyone whose aides, officials or
sons have lured him into signing false authorizations going to oversee
Israel Defense Forces generals and Finance Ministry budget managers?

Advertisement

The indictment, "The State of Israel versus Ehud Olmert," Case 329/96, ended
in 1997 with an acquittal. Judge Oded Mudrik decided to purify Olmert's
deeds. "The defendant signed a declaration that contains false information,"
determined Mudrik, but "it was not proven that he was aware of the falsehood
or turned a blind eye to it."

Mudrik, who made mention of the television series, "Yes, Minister," was also
not convinced of Olmert's involvement in the fraudulent receipts at the
basis of the fundraising.

According to one of the versions of the story that was heard at the trial,
without determining their truth postmortem, the official from whom the
defendants (Mordechai Yahel, Yona Peled and Mordechai Atzmon) drew their
authority was the late Eitan Livni - the father of Justice Minister Tzipi
Livni.

Along with the acquittal, Judge Mudrik made the following comments about
Olmert that those who are being asked to vote for him should keep in mind:
"Olmert boasted that there had been scrupulous review on his part"; "His
testimony in the court was refuted in a number of ways, hidden from the eye
and contradicted by the facts"; "There was no close supervision" and
therefore "he did not see the various elements of the activities passing
before him one by one"; and "He was exceedingly negligent in fulfilling his
obligations."

Only two years went by, and in the race against Sharon it emerged that
Olmert had not learned his lesson. The investigation of his relations with
contractor David Appel found that his office manager, Shula Zaken, had
phoned Appel, asked him for a contribution to Olmert's election campaign,
and arranged the visit by the mayor of Athens, suiting it to his needs.
Olmert joined the conversation on an extension and said to Appel, "Whatever
you want, just tell me," but Attorney General Menachem Mazuz realized that
Zaken had implicated Olmert through no fault of his own - "Yes, Mr. Mayor" -
and closed the case.

In the affair of the Likud receipts, Mudrik mentioned with skepticism one of
the witnesses' problems with his memory, which conveniently became confused.
At that time, the judge did not remember that forgetting is a common human
phenomenon. Olmert remembered hardly anything in the Appel case - not the
Greek delegation, not the special help that Appel had requested, and not
even whether such help had been received. This was the second incident that
caused Olmert an attack of amnesia. The first was recorded in 1988, in
criminal case 84/87 against Yehoshua Halperin of the Bank of North America.
Olmert, the witness for the prosecution, had borrowed $50,000 from Halperin
interest-free, but found at least 12 different ways to say that he could not
remember.

Human, but worrying. What availeth such an innocent leader, if his
subordinates exploit his integrity and his faith in mankind? The burden on a
prime minister is particularly weighty, and it is risky to impose it on
someone who has been diagnosed with such amnesia and negligence, as
acquitted as he may be.