Many European journalists don't understand what the fuss regarding former president Moshe Katsav is all about. If there was no rape, they say, what is the problem? Another man in a position of authority who committed adultery with women under his control?

In this sense, at least, Israel has preceded Europe in recent years. The results of the attorney general's decision prove, however, that the mission has not been completed.

Even if Menachem Mazuz erred in his considerations, the blatant onslaught on him exposed the gap between inflated expectations and legal reality. The plea bargain decision was based on the argument that the evidence was too weak and flimsy, and on an apparent contradiction between the testimony of the complainant who worked for the president and that of her friends, who said that she and the president had been having a love affair, which she exposed because of her jealousy.

However, this demonstrates another gap - between the changing public norm and the helplessness of the legal system, and more accurately, of the prosecution, to reflect the depth of this norm's change in legal terms.

It must be made perfectly clear: no sexual relations between an employer - especially a powerful man wielding either political or financial power - and a woman under his authority may be defined as a "love affair." There may be rare cases of genuine falling in love, but when a person habitually falls in love (if that's the proper description) with his secretaries, keeps their notes and gets embroiled because of his relations with them - this is hardly a love affair.

The employer, not the women - who may or may not have fallen in love, or may or may not have allowed him to do what he did - must face the public regarding the law on preventing sexual harassment. He is the one required to behave properly. The question whether any woman in some case or other was ensnared, fell in love, got confused, was hurt and did silly things or not, is not important. The only thing that matters is whether the man of power habitually "made advances" on his female employees or not.

The motive for the complaint is not important either. In sexual affairs, like incest, there is much emotional and ethical confusion, and it is not always possible to set borders. The most professional therapists sometimes have difficulty interpreting the mixed messages and confusion between affection and coercion.

Israeli society has begun to understand this. A few affairs - Yitzhak Mordechai, Haim Ramon and now Katsav - have helped it to do so. Nobody picked on Katsav because of his ethnic origin. Every public figure at the center of a scandal is surrounded by enemies and supporters. Ramon was defended by the north-Tel Aviv elite, while Katsav is defended by men from the periphery and a few rabbis who are taking advantage of the opportunity to preach to women to dress modestly.

The cultural norm in Israel is changing. The offensive Israeli expression "she gives" (she's easy) has been completely wiped out. Sex is no longer seen as merchandise that girls give and boys take. The distorted expression "murder for romantic reasons" has made way for the clear term "domestic violence." The distortion derives from the wretched French expression "crime de passion" (crime of passion).

Arab feminists reject the outrageous expression "murder because of desecrating the family's honor," suggesting instead a courageous debate on the oppression of women in the family and community.

This is what is happening now to "love affair." There are plenty of men (and women) who, like the Europeans, believe that "if they were having a love affair, then what's the problem?" But the public appears to have grasped that whatever there was here, it was no love affair.

This changing norm will turn even Mazuz's decision - based on his fear of losing the case in court and preferring to transfer the game to the public court - into a success, precisely because of the weakness of the system he heads.

© Haaretz