In the mind of Ehud Olmert, his tenure as Israeli Prime Minister and its immediate aftermath has a ring of the 1998 Gwyneth Paltrow film Sliding Doors.

Olmert, who took office after Ariel Sharon suffered a devastating stroke, is firm in his conviction that had his premiership lasted more than three years, Israelis would now be living in peace with Palestinians and thousands of lives would have been saved.

Instead, he announced his resignation in July 2008 amid tumbling approval ratings following an unpopular war with Lebanon, as well as a string of allegations of corruption and bribery.

To this day he insists he was the victim of a conspiracy by right-wing forces determined to derail his peace-making efforts and replace him with Benjamin Netanyahu.

He was then convicted in 2014 of accepting bribes to promote a real estate project in Jerusalem and of obstructing justice. The charges related to a period in 2006 when he was serving as Mayor of Jerusalem and Trade Minister.

Olmert was released in July last year after serving 16 months of a 27-month sentence.

A man of unwavering self-belief, in an interview with the JC, the 72-year-old repeated his assertion that he did not benefit financially from his crimes. “I never saw the money, I never got any money in my pocket.

“I never used the money for private uses. This was a political contribution that I still argue vehemently I never received, never heard of, never saw.

“The real question is whether I should have been a different Prime Minister, in order to prevent the efforts by so many different forces to stop me.

“I’m only sorry that I didn’t spend more time on political survival, and wasted all my time on doing what I thought was best for the State of Israel and its future.

“Perhaps if I had spent my time in a different way I would have dealt with my political opponents better.”

The legal troubles have obviously tarnished Olmert’s reputation. His memoirs have been published in Hebrew in Israel but he has yet to secure an English-language publishing deal for the lucrative US — and UK — market.

He is also quick to point out that the incumbent Prime Minister, Mr Netanyahu, is dogged by his own corruption allegations.

Regardless of his criminal convictions, it is tempting to join Olmert in his musings on what could have been. First, he says he would have negotiated a full withdrawal from the West Bank, save for “four or five per cent” of the territory with sizeable Jewish populations.

Mr Netanyahu’s approach has been radically different, choosing to manage the conflict rather than solve it, Olmert says.

“It would have been a viable option as long as Israel has leaders who are determined to accomplish it. The role of leadership is to create public opinion to support its policies.

“Every illusion makes people think they can drift in a fantasy of a wonderful life. Somehow you can hold 20 different balls in the air without one falling. But when it starts to fall, the damage is irreparable.”

The need for peace is not based, primarily, on security concerns, or even on compassion for Palestinians, he says. Rather, Israel’s status as a Jewish and democratic state itself is threatened.

“We need to make peace because it’s the starting point towards a long process of re-establishing the status and relations of Israel with neighbouring countries and the entire world.

“For a long time our relationships with neighbouring Arab populations was based on suspicion and hatred, because of the perception of Israel as an occupying military power which entirely disregards the human and civil rights of other people.

“First we need to sign a political agreement which will not be ideal. It will take risks that many are not prepared to take, but inevitably we will have to take them in order to start the process of changing attitudes.

“Once the perception of Israel changes in the Western world, most of the accusations about being a suppressive country will fade out.”

The decade since his resignation has clearly not gone to plan for Olmert. He readily admits his life “would be very different”. As one of only two surviving ex-Prime Ministers, he could have spent his 70s and 80s milking media and commercial opportunities.

He is neither irascible nor guarded when discussing his legal troubles. In composed, statesmanlike diction he insists he can “live with myself very easily. It’s been a difficult period but it requires a strong personality to cope with it. I have a very positive perception of myself.

“People are very friendly, and many regret the circumstances that forced me out of where I should be now.

“It would not be an exaggeration to say wherever I go, I am received in the street, in the restaurants, in the department stores in the warmest possible manner one can be.

“Life is not always easy and you just have to be able to cope with it.”