Ehud Olmert was dead right.    

Three months before he announced he would not contest the Kadima party leadership and thereby resign as Israel’s prime minister after a new leader is chosen later in September, he told the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel that only a miracle could save his job.

Olmert, whose reputation was first shaken by the inconclusive outcome of the Second Lebanon War, but whose downfall was irrevocably hastened by ongoing police investigations turning on bribery, fraud and breach of trust, finally acknowledged his untenable position on July 30 with his abrupt announcement that he would pull out of Kadima’s hotly contested leadership race.

Politically weakened by corruption scandals that sapped his credibility and virtually destroyed his integrity, Olmert, though maintaining his innocence, had no choice but to step down.

Olmert was living on borrowed time. His popularity rating had plummeted to new,  unprecedented depths. The defence minister, Ehud Barak, had declared that Olmert could not carry on as usual while enemeshed in  scandal. As Barak’s Labor party colleague, Shelly Yachimovich, put it, Israelis deserved “a prime minister who is not up to his neck in criminal procedures.”

Olmert’s squeaky clean rival, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who had called for his resignation in the wake of the 2006 war in Lebanon, was just as blunt, suggesting that the allegations against him went to the heart of the “values and norms” of Israeli society, and that he  had no alternative but to draw the appropriate conclusions. Additionally, three parliamentary non-confidence motions in his government hammered home the point that Olmert was in deep trouble.

Prior to these setbacks, he was steadfast and unwavering, determined to tough it out, come what may.  

“I have no intention of resigning, and I am not going anywhere,” he said in a blustery retort.  At another juncture, he said he would  resign only if indicted.

These combative statements, however, impressed few of his Knesset colleagues. One of them, the chairman of the National Religious Party, Zvulon Orlev, probably spoke for many of his fellow MKs when he caustically observed, “In a civilized country, [Olmert] would have stepped down a long time ago.”

In retrospect, Olmert was tainted by the whiff of scandal even before he officially replaced his predecessor, Ariel Sharon, in May 2006.

In 1997, when he was the mayor of Jerusalem and still a member of the Likud party, he was acquitted of responsibility for election campaign irregularities. And two years later, he was briefly embroiled in an unsavoury case revolving around an Israeli developer who sought to build a hotel in Greece.

The most serious charges against him, though, are connected to the period from 2003 onward when he was a cabinet minister.

It is alleged that he bought a home in Jerusalem for $320,000 less than the $1.6 million market price in exchange for helping a construction company acquire building permits. It is alleged that he attempted to help a friend and campaign financier buy stock in the Bank Leumi. It is alleged that he was involved in a scheme to sell and then rent a private residence in Jerusalem.

At the very least, critics charged, Olmert  acted inappropriately.

The two scandals that ultimately sealed his fate broke as Israel prepared to celebrate its 60th anniversary of statehood.

In the Talansky affair, an American Jewish businessman, Morris Talansky, testified that he gave Olmert $150,000 over 15 years. Olmert claims he accepted the funds, never repaid, for campaign purposes. But the police appear to believe that Olmert enriched himself in the process. Whatever the truth, the Talansky affair leaves the strong impression that Olmert was hedonistic and high-living. In a fraudulent billing scandal, Olmert allegedly billed state and charitable agencies for the same flights and used the difference for personal trips and family vacations.

In the past few weeks, police officers assigned to Olmert’s file have questioned him on seven different occasions. It remains to be seen whether he will be charged with any crimes, but the scandals have doubtless dealt his political career a fatal blow.

Olmert, Israel’s fifth premier in just nine years, was something of an accidental prime minister, having assumed office after Sharon succumbed to a massive stroke.

Though it is true that he renewed his mandate through an election, his centrist Kadima party won only 29 Knesset seats and could not have governed without forming a coalition government, the staple of Israeli politics.

Olmert, who was due to finish his term in 2110, got off to a bad start and never really recovered.

About a month after his inauguration as prime minister, an Israeli corporal, Gilad Schalit, was abducted by Palestinian gunmen who  attacked his post near the Gaza Strip (which Israel unilaterally relinquished in the summer of 2005). Olmert enthusiastically supported and promoted Sharon’s pullout plan, claiming that a unilateral withdrawal was necessary because Israel had no Palestinian partner with whom to negotiate.

Sharon and Olmert both hoped that Israel’s  pullout from Gaza would pacify the border region and lead to a unilateral withdrawal from much of the West Bank. But Schalit’s abduction, the renewal of Qassam rocket attacks on Israeli towns and kibbutzim adjacent to Gaza and the ascendancy of Hamas forced Olmert to abandon unilateralism and reopen direct talks with the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas.

These negotiations, launched last autumn under the sponsorship of the United States, have made little headway, notwithstanding Olmert’s optimistic view that Israel and the Palestinians are “closer than ever” to reaching understandings that could serve as a basis for a two-state solution and a peace treaty.

Last month, Abbas rejected an Israeli proposal calling for the transfer of 93 per cent of the West Bank to the Palestinians and mutual territorial exchanges. Olmert, who has said that a two-state solution is necessary to ensure Israel’s survival as a Jewish state, made the offer amid disquieting reports that Israel is continuing to build new housing units in the West Bank.

On the face of it, Israel’s proposal seems  fairly generous, but to the Palestinians, it is unacceptable on two counts. In addition to falling short of the Palestinian consensus for a full Israeli withdrawal, it is contingent on the Palestinian Authority regaining control of Gaza, which was seized by Hamas two years ago and is extremely unlikely to be wrested away from Hamas by Fatah, Abbas’ militia.

Olmert was also tarred by the Second Lebanon War. The majority of Israelis initially supported it, but public opinion shifted as Hezbollah bombarded Israel and as Hezbollah fighters effectively fought the Israeli army to a draw.

Harshly criticized by the Winograd Commission for his handling of the war, Olmert managed to hang on to his job. But after the war, he was increasingly unpopular.

Olmert regained some footing after ordering the preemptive bombing of a Syrian nuclear facility last September and restarting peace talks with Syria in May. But after four rounds under Turkey’s auspices, the talks have yet to reach the point where the two sides can engage in direct negotiations.

Olmert will thus leave the political stage with a decidedly mixed record, but historians will probably remember him as the prime minister whose career was ruined by a series of scandals.