"The best there are" - Of all the personas the prime minister could have assumed in his appearance before the committee - "the apologizer," "putting on a show of modesty," "the embarrassed, well-intentioned," "the trying-to-charm-with-his-sincerity," and so forth - Ehud Olmert chose the Olympian, elevated tone of speech of "the generous forgiver." From the unimaginable heights of his lofty office, which soar far above any blunder or mistake, he deigns to heap generous compliments on "the people in the army" as such: from the last of the field troops to the senior officers of the General Staff. And not just any compliment, but also a kind of covert request for pardon for those errant unfortunates. He addresses the committee as judging colleague to judging colleagues, and updates them to the effect that these soldiers are "the best there are" (which can also be read as, "Hey, what can we do if there are no better?").

"I love them" - Poets who, over the generations, have wondered "what love is" will find it rolling like garbage in the realm of Israeli politicians: they "love the soldiers, the strikers, the hungry, the bombed, the residents of the periphery, the jobless, their rivals. But they, the ingrates who are the object of their love, are incapable of valuing this and making do with it. Olmert, too - as one who sticks a cherry on top of the cream of his praises for "the people in the army" - sees fit to inform the committee that he simply "loves them."

It makes you wonder: What goes through the head of someone who is capable of telling the committee that he "loves" the army people - an infinitely patronizing and pompous remark, which probably even medieval kings did not dare to utter. Did he perhaps think that the committee would find it a mitigating circumstance that he did not send the soldiers and officers into war only because he hated them? There is also another possibility: maybe the cliches jangle so raucously in his head that he is capable of emitting them without giving it much thought, only because they have a nice ring to them? "Like in court"?

	Advertisement

"I remember pacing the living room in the prime minister's residence," etc. - Its interpretation: Guided visualization in action. The witness "screens" for the committee an impressive scene, which exemplifies the depth of his caring and responsibility as prime minister. "I remember," he says of himself, as though he left his body for a moment and observed himself, "pacing the living room in the prime minister's residence, back and forth." What could express concern and caring more than this - at least in the movies and on TV? Yet, when it comes to the credibility of the story, there is something a bit suspicious about the narrator's retroactive self-awareness of his physical mannerisms while "agonizing mentally" (see below). Does a person at the height of his "agonizing" even remember what he looks like from the outside? It looks as though the witness has seen too many TV programs of "The West Wing" type, or watched too many soccer games on TV centering around the body language of coach Dror Kashtan.

Apart from the partial alienating effect - as though the speaker were only playing the part of prime minister - the topographical specification also stands out in its weirdness: "in the living room of the prime minister's residence." As though the committee might mistakenly think that he was pacing back and forth in the bathroom, like any worried citizen, or in a living room that was not in the prime minister's residence. Or perhaps the quick-tongued witness made haste to add "the prime minister's residence" after "the living room" for fear that Judge Winograd would prick up an ear and think he was talking about the living room in the house on Cremieux Street, for example.

"Agonizing mentally, knowing that in my mind's eye I see the faces of the children who will not return," etc. - It is interesting to follow the rapid spinning of the wheels of the witness' mind. For fear that his concern for "the people in the army" would be taken as a mere cliche, he thickens it with a physical description of his walking in the room; and for fear that this description will be taken as a cinematic cliche, he thickens it, too, by means of a dive into the depths of the psyche: "agonizing mentally, knowing that in my mind's eye I see the faces of the children ..."

This is a bizarre construction, again suspiciously self-aware. He doesn't just "see the faces of the children," but is in a state of "knowing that in my mind's eye I see [them]." But how "see"? What "see"? How does he know what they look like? What is he - Ariel Sharon? "I know them," he quickly adds. But from where does he "know them"? From reserve duty, from the Free Center? From army buddies of his children? He therefore hastens to make it clear, as an experienced lawyer who covers himself from all sides, that they are "the sons of my friends."

Cut: If the committee members wish, they will be impressed; if not, maybe we will sue them.

"And I am grateful to myself - if I may - that I was able to overcome these terrible torments" - So acute is the theatrical self-awareness of the witness that he is capable not only of observing himself "pacing the living room" during his agonizing, but also cheering himself from the front row of the hall for his impressive ability "to overcome these terrible torments."

The sharp of ear will undoubtedly notice the similarity between this testimony and the unforgettable words of MK Esterina Tartman ("Though the body hurts, the spirit will remain firm and strong. I am proud that I do not let disability affect my functioning."). On the face of it, what is the connection between a strange MK and an unpopular PM? It turns out that, at least with regard to the culture of government, we have a pose by any other name.

"You will not understand me until you stand in the place where," etc. - An awkward paraphrase of the catchphrase "Things you see from here, you don't see from there." Despite everything, the witness insists on implanting in the committee members the impression that he is Ariel Sharon, or what remains of him.

"This decision was good for the people of Israel" - We could have analyzed the testimonies of the other senior figures - Peretz, Halutz - which were perhaps juicier. But on this occasion, in which an authentic text, improvised in dramatic circumstances in back rooms, is exposed, Olmert's multilayered testimony is of special interest, as it shows us "what makes the guy tick." Especially when we are being subjected to the scare-warning that the alternative to Olmert is Bibi. But after perusing the text above, we can rest easy: What is there to be afraid of with Bibi, when the Bibism is already here?