There is a story that is told in journalism school. Back in the 1890s, the publisher William Randolph Hearst moved to New York from San Francisco and purchased the New York Journal. He did not know much about New York, but he did know that a large percentage of the city’s population was Irish and that he needed them as readers.

So, when St. Patrick’s Day rolled around, he told his editors that after every story on the front page, he wanted the phrase, “It’s a Great Day for the Irish” printed in green ink. Unfortunately, that day’s paper was full of stories about young Seamus O’Brien’s tragic murder, the formation of a new violent gang called the County Mayo Mob, and a terrible fire at the St. Francis Academy. Each was followed by the phrase, “It’s a Great Day for the Irish.”

Needless to say, it was back to the drawing board for Hearst!

Of course, no one would ever append the phrase, “It’s a Great Day for the Jews” anywhere. In fact, the idea sounds ridiculous. I suppose the Jewish people have had “great days,” but they have been few and far between. Even today, it is as if the Jews can’t catch a break.

Look at this week’s Ehud Olmert story.

Olmert’s decision not to seek re-election is tantamount to an admission of guilt. If the charges had no merit, Olmert would, no doubt, stay on the job.

Nevertheless, it is hard to work up much outrage over the allegations against the prime minister. Although the “they all do it” defense does not exonerate, it does offer some perspective. No one in Israel would claim that Olmert’s actions are unique to him. In fact, several of his possible successors have been accused of similar practices.

Moreover, few expect the Olmert scandal to change much of anything.

The United States is far from pure but following political scandals here we make attempts at reform and elect officials as different from the previous tainted leader as possible. After Teapot Dome in the 1920s, we elected Calvin Coolidge who was incorruptible and straitlaced to a fault. After Richard Nixon and Watergate, we elected Jimmy Carter who, like Coolidge, was almost a caricature of old-fashioned honesty.

Scandals here are also invariably followed by a burst of governmental reform. After Nixon was forced out of office, the United States implemented a campaign finance system that requires virtually full disclosure of campaign contributions. There is too much money in our politics but now at least we know where it’s coming from.

That is not how it works in Israel. If previous experience is repeated, reform efforts will fail and the only thing the Israeli system will learn from the Olmert case is not to elect . . . Ehud Olmert. And then, as they like to say in Louisiana: “laissez les bon temps roulez” (let the good times roll).

For better or worse, domestic Israeli politics is not our problem. It is quite enough for us to be concerned about how the political situation in Israel affects prospects for Middle East peace. That is where we are affected both as friends of Israel and as Americans.

And it is here where the Olmert departure is most troubling.

Over the past several years, Ehud Olmert has transformed himself from standard issue Likud hawk to seeker of peace and reconciliation with the Arabs (especially the Palestinians).

Here at Israel Policy Forum, we witnessed a critical moment in Olmert’s transformation. It was June 9, 2005. Olmert was vice prime minister under Ariel Sharon. With Sharon, he was architect of the Gaza withdrawal. It was as such that we invited him to address IPF. Although IPF preferred negotiating withdrawal with the Palestinians to unilateralism, we believed that it was significant that Olmert and Sharon had come around to withdrawal at all.

We didn’t know that Olmert had personally gone far beyond tactical support for a strategic withdrawal. Nor that he had become fully committed to ending the occupation and achieving peace with the Palestinians. We learned that he had when he departed from his prepared remarks to say that there simply is no alternative for Israel than resolving the conflict.

“We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies. We want to live in an entirely different environment with our enemies. We want them to be our friends, our partners, our good neighbors, and I believe that this is not impossible and that it is within reach if we are smart, if we will dare, if we are prepared to take the risks, and if we will be able to convince our Palestinian partners to be able to do the same.”

Hearing this, we knew that Olmert would, if given the chance, achieve peace with the Palestinians. At least, he would try hard.

And in his short term in office he did try hard. In fact, Israelis and Palestinians are now closer to an agreement than at any time since 2000. Peace with Syria appears attainable. A cease-fire with Hamas is in place. And, thanks to the Egyptians, the smuggling of weapons into Gaza has been significantly reduced.

Palestinians tell me that they made progress with Olmert because he is a fair and honest negotiator. They also contrast his negotiating style with that of some previous prime ministers who may have been ready to compromise but were clearly not ready to treat their Palestinian interlocutors with any respect.

Had Olmert survived, he almost surely would have produced at least one peace agreement for his country.

In short, Olmert’s fall is anything but a great day for the Jews. Nor do I believe that it is a coincidence that the hawk-turned-dove is being forced to leave office. In Richard Nixon’s words, Olmert gave “his enemies a sword.”

But it was a sword that they enthusiastically sought and then used to cut down an Israeli leader who effectively pursued peace.

This is all the more reason why the United States is so essential to achieving an agreement. Left to their own devices, neither the Israeli or Palestinian leadership can withstand the forces determined to preserve the status quo. It requires a fully engaged White House to tilt the scales. Without us, it is not going to happen.