Reduced sentence still an unbearable blow for Olmert
Op-ed: Former PM's bribery conviction and 18-month jail term are joined by the understanding that his hope of returning to the public arena is over, along with a 50-year political career.
Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert received an extremely heavy sentence from the Supreme Court judges on Tuesday. The imprisonment is only part of it. It is joined by the knowledge that it brings Olmert's hope to return to the public arena to an end. An almost 50-year political career is over.
Moreover, there is the understanding that this is it: The door has been closed. There will be no more appeals, no requests, no proceedings. For an optimistic person like Olmert, who was always so certain of his power to get out of any type of trouble, this is an unbearable blow.
And he still awaits the final ruling in the Talansky affair, and the threat of the State Prosecutor's Office to indict him on other issues. It's not over and done with yet.
The ruling written by the five Supreme Court judges is an informative document. First of all, it is impressively clear and transparent. It discusses the Holyland affair in a practical, restrained, cool manner, as required in such a case.
After reading it, I reread the ruling written by Tel Aviv District Court Judge David Rozen. Rozen wrote a shallow, disparaging, tricky document. In terms of rules of evidence, it's an embarrassing document.
Former Minister Ronnie Bar-On on Tuesday contributed his own interpretation to the Supreme Court judges' decision to acquit Olmert on the charge involving payments received by his brother Yossi from financier Shmuel Dechner. "The judges didn't acquit Olmert," he said. "They saved the legal system. Had they adopted Rozen's ruling, rules of evidence would have become meaningless."
Indeed, the ruling indicates an effort made by the Supreme Court judges to revert the affair back to its real dimensions. It was not mercy towards the accused (apart from one) that made them move from a conviction to a partial acquittal, but reading comprehension. "There are judges in Jerusalem," late Prime Minister Menachem Begin once said. It turns out that there are not always judges in Tel Aviv.
The most dramatic change was in the sentence of former Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski. Judge Rozen sentenced him to six years in prison; the Supreme Court sentenced him to six months of community service. The Supreme Court judges took two pieces of mitigating evidence into consideration: The fact that Lupolianski didn't slip a penny into his pocket: The money was directly transferred to the Yad Sarah volunteer organization which he founded; and the difficult cancer he is suffering from.
Lupolianski is a pleasant, positive person. It's easy to identify with him. Judge Rozen treated him with excessive cruelness. Nonetheless, Lupolianski was the senior public figure who pushed for benefits for the Holyland housing project. He was the head of the bribed. The Supreme Court reconvicted him of taking a bribe. On this background, the public celebration he organized for himself on Tuesday was somewhat irritating. He received his freedom, but the stain remains. And by the way, he is wrong: It's not God who gave him his freedom, but human judges. They are the ones he must thank.
When one reads the ruling, including the judges' different interpretations of the material in front of them, it appears that the judges went through a process. On the one hand, they were convinced that the establishment of the Holyland project was fundamentally corrupt; those involved in such an affair cannot get away with it without being punished. On the other hand, they had deep doubts about some of the evidence. The challenge was to settle the uncertainty and the doubt.
The Olmert case is a good example. The judges acquitted him on the bribery charge involving money sent by criminal financier Dechner to Yossi, Olmert's fleeing brother. The prosecution failed to prove that Ehud had known about the money received by Yossi. That was enough for four of the judges to acquit him.
The second charge had to do with NIS 60,000 which Olmert's bureau chief, Shula Zaken, claimed in one of her versions that she had transferred in order to cover Olmert's election debts. In this case too, there was a great amount of doubt: Zaken deposited the money in her sister's bank account, withdrew it in cash, went on a family vacation and then, according to her testimony, gave it to Olmert. The Supreme Court decided on a conviction nonetheless.
Olmert was simply a bench player in the Holyland affair. The decisions were not advanced by him, were not received during his term. But Olmert is Olmert. The trial was held on the background of the Talansky cases, which were discussed by other panels, and the Shula Zaken recordings. No one can remain indifferent to such embarrassing, serious material, especially when the person involved is a prime minister. In the Supreme Court ruling, the judges reiterate Olmert's senior position. They demand more of him. And when it comes to him, they demand more of themselves as well.
When they decided to reduce his sentence, they knew they were facing a large group of people, some of them public figures, who have been driven mad by their thirst for Olmert's blood.
Judge Isaac Amit had a good answer: "It's possible that the public or part of it will be surprised or disappointed by Olmert's acquittal on the main charge," the wrote. "But the public's faith in the court stems from the knowledge that it rules as required by law and by the evidence and not because of its fear of the public's response… The court does not rule according to images, according to rumors or according to 'but everyone knows that…' Not for fear that the public will be disappointed and not according to interviews in the media. We do our best to isolate ourselves from external noises. That's what we have done and that's what we will do in the future."
The media storm, preach, sometimes rant, and the judges judge: That's the way it should be. Indeed, there are judges in Jerusalem.
