http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3166/freezing-settlements-help-peace Israel has given such “goodwill gestures” to the Palestinians before, but the reciprocal gestures were never as good-willed. In exchange for “goodwill gestures,” Israel gets concussions. The current US administration has been advocating the freezing of Israeli settlement activity in Judea and Samaria, and so have several global players involved in the peace process. […]
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=2230
This week’s announcement of the “not guilty” verdict in two of the three indictments against former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert became the focus of a post-courtroom drama.Olmert’s defense team beamed with satisfaction, not only pleased as punch for a job well done, but quick to point a finger at (and give the finger to) State Prosecutor Moshe Lador.
Before the day was out, everyone in the country had taken a side. Those displeased with the outcome of the trial rushed to defend the State Prosecutor’s Office for having had more than reasonable cause to proceed with the case, and for treating even the leader of the country as it would any other citizen suspected of corruption. They attested, and continue to insist, that the only reason Olmert was acquitted of the two more serious charges was due to the unreliability of the prosecution witnesses, and the lack of concrete evidence.
This group fears that the surprising verdict will unjustifiably tarnish the State Prosecutor — which, they argue, could have a negative impact on the ability of the “people” to go after their politicians when warranted.
On the other side of the debate are those who were happy with the relatively light conviction on a third charge — breach of trust — made out to be far lighter than it was by Olmert himself, his supporters, Lador’s detractors, and by much of the media. This group, consisting of Kadima party members and other friends of the previously disgraced premier, accused the state prosecutor of having orchestrated a witch hunt against Olmert, compelling him to resign from the prime minister’s post three years ago.
They feel that it is now Lador’s turn to exit his post in disgrace. After all, they claim, it was he who single-handedly brought about the ouster of an incumbent head of state by going after him with “trumped-up” charges that ended up having no evidentiary basis. (If this had been true, the courts would have thrown out — not tried — the case; but that’s another story.)
This is not their only contention, however. Nor is it even their main one.
