There is little sympathy in Israel for Ehud Olmert, who finally left the prime minister’s office this week. He is widely viewed as a corrupt politician who failed to achieve the lofty goals he set for himself when he took office.
But there are some nagging doubts about the system that brought down Olmert: An elected prime minister was forced out of office even though he has yet to be found guilty of any crime.
Three major investigations against Olmert — for allegedly tampering with terms for the sale of Bank Leumi to help a friend, and receiving substantial discounts in the rental and purchase of two Jerusalem apartments in return for favors — have been closed for lack of evidence.
It’s possible that Olmert was forced out of office by muckraking political opponents without his having committed any crime, Olmert confidants say.
In a mid-February interview in Israel’s daily Yediot Achronot, Olmert’s wife, Aliza, implied as much, saying politically motivated people had been out to get her husband. She declined to go into detail.
Amnon Dankner, a former chief editor of the daily Ma’ariv and a close friend of Olmert, was more forthcoming.
“From the moment he placed himself as the predominant leader of the peacemaking left,” Dankner wrote of Olmert in Ma’ariv last August, “right-wing elements started digging through his affairs going back down the years to produce suspicious material for the authorities.”
On the face of it, Dankner’s allegations seem to have merit.
Yoav Yitzhak, the investigative journalist who produced the allegations on the two Jerusalem apartments, helped bring down another peace-leaning politician, the late President Ezer Weizman. The official who came up with the Bank Leumi allegations was then–accountant general Yaron Zelekha, who is close to Benjamin Netan-yahu. And Moshe Talansky, the U.S. businessman who allegedly gave Olmert envelopes stuffed with cash, and who then testified against him, has spoken of his disappointment in the once hawkish Olmert’s transformation into a political dove.
The trouble with the picture of Olmert as victim, however, is that some of the allegations against him seem to carry merit: After all, police have recommended that Olmert be indicted in three separate cases. What difference does it make if their initial muckraking motivation was political?
In two of the cases, Israel’s attorney general has decided to indict Olmert pending a hearing: the Talansky affair, in which Olmert is alleged to have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash over a 13-year period, and the Rishon Tours affair, in which Olmert allegedly double-billed for trips and lectures he made abroad, using the excess money to finance travel by family members.
Two other Olmert investigations are ongoing, which is nothing new. He long has operated under such clouds.
The problem facing the Israeli legal system is finding a balance between fighting corruption in high places and not allowing political opponents to abuse the system to subvert the democratic process.
Hebrew University’s Shlomo Avineri, one of Israel’s top political scientists, says the main problem is the slow pace of investigation. In the case of public figures, drawn-out investigations are not only unfair to the politicians, but they hamper government functioning and can pervert democracy, Avineri says. Investigations should be expedited, he says.
Some have suggested adopting the French system, under which the country’s leader cannot be investigated while in office. Another possibility would be something akin to the U.S. system of impeachment: no indictment unless and until a politician is impeached by a two-thirds majority in the Knesset.
As for Olmert, he’s still hoping his name will cleared — and once it is, he will find a way back to the top sooner than most people think.