August 31, 2009

Olmert indicted

The New York Times reports on the three main charges against former PM Ehud Olmert.

The most sensational of the three cases involved Morris Talansky, a Long Island businessman, from whom Mr. Olmert is alleged to have received more than $600,000, partly in cash-stuffed envelopes, from 1997 to 2005. Prosecutors accuse Mr. Olmert of hiding the money and failing to report it to the authorities. Though Mr. Olmert has not been charged with taking bribes in the Talansky case, he is accused of abusing his position as a government minister to promote Mr. Talansky's private business interests in Israel and abroad, constituting a major conflict of interest.

Mr. Olmert is also charged with fraudulently billing multiple entities, including state agencies and charities, for trips abroad during his time in government. He is accused of amassing a secret credit account of more than $92,000 at his travel agency, which he used to finance private and family travel. The indictment includes a chart documenting more than a dozen trips that Mr. Olmert took to the United States, Europe, the Far East and other destinations, and charged two or more agencies for, from 2002 to 2005.

In a third scandal, Mr. Olmert is charged with promoting the interests of the clients of a longtime associate and former law partner, Uri Messer, while Mr. Olmert served as the minister of industry and trade. Mr. Messer, according to the indictment, provided Mr. Olmert with various services, including running a "secret fund" with cash from Mr. Talansky and other sources that was kept in a safe in Mr. Messer's office, and later in a safe at a bank.

The Washington Post (accompanied by a very unflattering photo of Olmert) though adds a gratuitous spin to the story:


Former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert was indicted Sunday in a corruption scandal that led to his resignation last year and set the stage for a rightward shift in Israeli politics

"Rightward shift!" that's the real scandal isn't it!

The Post had this tidbit:

Noting that other allegations against Olmert were dropped without charges being brought, spokesman Amir Dan told the daily Haarertz that Olmert "is convinced that he will once and for all be able to prove his innocence in court."

That's true. In 1996, an overzealous attorney general went after a number of Netanyahu's cabinet appointees. One of them was Olmert, who was cleared of wrongdoing. (Others who were pursued by the AG, Michael Ben Yair, Yaacov Ne'eman and the late Gen. Rafael Eitan were also exonerated.)

The Post also reported:

Olmert rose to the prime minister's chair in 2006 after then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was incapacitated by a stroke.

He was quickly embroiled in a war with the Lebanese Hezbollah militia that resulted in what by Israeli standards were unacceptable losses of troops and equipment. His management of the conflict was widely criticized and resulted in calls for him to step down.

I suspect that this played a greater role in bringing about "rightward" tilt in Israel's government: the impression that Olmert was in over his head. The investigation sealed his fate, but Olmert was going to have a hard time getting re-elected regardless because his performance was viewed as disastrous. In other words this year's election was about competence not ideology.

Yaacov Lozowick would seem to agree.

I had an interesting conversation the other day with some friends. None of us had voted for Netanyahu, and all of us felt he's doing a reasonable job. This is very unusual for us, as our natural condition is to revile our government, no matter who they are. Since it looks like he's going to be in office for a while yet, here's hoping he keeps on doing a reasonable job.
Posted by SoccerDad at August 31, 2009 8:14 AM
Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • del.icio.us
  • digg
  • Furl
  • Spurl
  • YahooMyWeb
  • co.mments
  • Ma.gnolia
  • De.lirio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlinkList
  • NewsVine
  • scuttle
  • Fark
  • Shadows
Add this blog to my Technorati Favorites!
Comments

"The most sensational of the three cases involved Morris Talansky, a Long Island businessman, from whom Mr. Olmert is alleged to have received more than $600,000, partly in cash-stuffed envelopes, from 1997 to 2005. Prosecutors accuse Mr. Olmert of hiding the money and failing to report it to the authorities. Though Mr. Olmert has not been charged with taking bribes in the Talansky case, he is accused of abusing his position as a government minister to promote Mr. Talansky's private business interests in Israel and abroad, constituting a major conflict of interest."
...............................................
Olmert received cash from Talansky which he hid and used his position to promote Talansky's private business interests? How exactly does this not amount to bribery?

Posted by: Laura at August 31, 2009 12:33 PM

Olmert is being charged with criminal conduct while in office. The fact he was an incompetent Prime Minister is not the issue in the indictment issued against him.

Posted by: NormanF at August 31, 2009 2:20 PM

I'm not sure about this. The shift in the electorate was across the board one notch to the right in party. But there are some serious dynamics in play here. 1) Sharon creates a new party which splits the likud & labor but it is in reality 'Likud Light'. 2) Sharon comes off 2 back to back victories as PM (the only man to do this) & he draws the electorate with him. 3) He never gets to govern & Olmert replaces him.

It is Olmert himself who swings the dynamic left and delivers something the voters did not actually vote for in party platform all on Sharon's name / back. It was not so much the loss of men & materiel that caused outrage, it was the lack of drive to accomplish any objectives despite that loss..

4) It is actually the right itself which maintains Olmert's coalition through the wars & corruption while the public clamors endlessly for elections to fix the sleight of hand Olmert has delivered.

I think we saw moves party wise, but I'm not sure about a shift to the right in Israeli politics, I think the electorate was where they were by and large all along. The real shift was on the left abandoning Meretz & Labor to vote Kadima, but they did so to stop Netanyahu.

Keeping in mind it was: Likud, Likud, then Kadima, then Likud; it paints a clearer picture - Especially when one considers that the Kadima part was not as advertised. Did we really see a shift in Israeli politics? Or did the left just hijack things for a while under Olmert / Livni who actually misled the electorate? Food for thought.

In reality it has been Likud since 2001, if you block out Barak for two years previous, it is Likud since 1996 to now. Sorry to pollute the thread / post, I thought you would find this line of argument interesting.

Posted by: saus at August 31, 2009 4:58 PM

Labor has not been the beneficiary of Oslo. The party has suffered a steady leaching of support and is now on its deathbed. Its torn apart by personality conflicts and policy disputes and shows no sign of getting its act back together.

Posted by: NormanF at August 31, 2009 10:11 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?