Tag: Bibi Netanyahu

The unrelenting drive to bring an indictment—any indictment—against Netanyahu has long exceeded the bounds of reasonable law enforcement

Ever since he [Benjamin Netanyahu] was elected to lead the Likud and especially after he became prime minister, the mainstream media has ceaselessly sought to besmirch him and his family. No other democratic leader has been continuously vilified to such an extent. The liberal Israeli media has had more front-page coverage of Netanyahu’s alleged personal failings and vague accusations of corruption than coverage of the turbulent and bloody events in the region that threaten our very survival.- Isi Leibler, Dysfunctional Politics and Disgraceful Behavior , February 20, 2018.

The past week was just another normal week in Israel—with new and sensational allegations and suspicions of evermore grave violations of the law by the Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, being supposedly uncovered by the police—and dramatically covered by a frenetic press.

Impudent upstart usurper

Ever since his unexpected, razor-thin 1996 victory over Shimon Peres—the left-leaning liberal establishment candidate for the premiership—Netanyahu has been hounded and harassed by his political rivals within Israel’s entrenched civil society elites, and subjected to a maelstrom of allegations that range from the petty to the preposterous.

For two decades, he has been assailed by the self-appointed bon-ton set, who saw him as an impudent upstart usurper of the their divinely ordained right to govern. Significantly, the recriminations against him rarely—if ever—related to the manner in which he discharged the duties of the office to which he was elected.

As their astonished disbelief morphed into visceral rage, a cavalcade of charges was unleashed, admonishing him (and/or his spouse) for irregular use of garden furniture, the employment of an electrician, the proceeds from the sale of recycled bottles; payments to a moving contractor, an inflated ice cream bill (no kidding), the cost of his wife’s coiffure, meals ordered for the official PM residence from restaurants; expenses involving the care of his ailing 96 year old father-in-law…

Significantly, several of the investigations into these “grave transgressions” ended with a recommendation by the police to indict. Equally significantly, no indictment ever materialized—usually because of “difficulties with the evidence provided”.

Indeed, just how ludicrous and uncalled for the relentless witch-hunt appeared to some outside pundits is vividly reflected in a scathing critique of the anti-Netanyahu probes by the ever-incisive Daniel Greenfield, who jeered disparagingly: “Netanyahu’s wife was accused of stealing bottle deposits. ‘Attorney general mulls probe into Sara Netanyahu’s bottle deposits’ isn’t a gag, it’s an actual headline.”

Despairing of democracy

With the onset of the March 2015 elections, most pundits confidently predicted the end of the Netanyahu era. Buoyed by optimistic polls and bolstered by ample foreign financing, provided by an undisguisedly anti-Bibi Obama administration, Netanyahu’s left-of-center rivals felt assured of victory.

Stunned by his strong showing and devoid of any alternative contender of adequate stature, they apparently despaired of defeating him at the ballot box—and fell back on other less democratic measures.

Thus, after huge media hype and well over a year of intensive investigation that spanned several continents and reportedly cost tens of millions of shekels—paid for by the very same taxpayers Netanyahu is suspected of defrauding—apparently all the police could come up with is what was already known by many: Netanyahu had ill-advisedly accepted an inordinate amount of wine and cigars over a ten year period from close personal acquaintances. Allegedly, in exchange for these plentiful high-end gifts, all that Netanyahu is supposed to have actually done is to help one of his generous friends, with a long record of service to the country, with his US visa arrangements. How heinous of him. How detrimental to the citizens of Israel and the principles of good governance!

As far as has been reported, everything else that Netanyahu attempted to achieve, supposedly in return for this untoward largesse, came to naught—leaving us to puzzle over how this was in anyway damaging to public welfare or how the national interest was undermined by it.

No less perplexing—and perturbing?

The other accusation, of bribery,  fraud and breach of trust, also entails something that never happened. In this case, Netanyahu met with the owner of a widely-read daily, that was consistently and fiercely critical of the Prime Minister, who was asked to use his influence to reduce competition from a rival daily, in return for less negative coverage.

Nothing ever came of the meeting. Quite the opposite. Netanyahu stanchly defended the rival newspaper against proposed legislation, intended to close it down, while its unrequited competitor continued to lambast him.

No less perplexing—and perturbing—were the developments of the past few days.

In the wake of intensive investigations, a number of senior managers and major shareholders of a large tele-communication corporation were arrested together with the director-general of the Ministry of Communications and Netanyahu’s former media advisor.

Here there appear to be two major charges. The one is that Netanyahu, as Minister of Communications, acted to advance the commercial interests of said corporation and its major shareholder. In return for this, Netanyahu and his family were supposedly given favorable coverage by a media channel, Walla, owned by the putative beneficiaries of Netanyahu’s purported efforts on their behalf.

The only real evidence of this seems to be a liberally photographed report of Sara Netanyahu visiting fire fighters in the north of the country—hardly much of a “quo” for such an allegedly substantial “quid”.

Bibi-phobia and the law of unintended consequences

The other suspected transgression involves an approach, allegedly made by Netanyahu’s former media advisor to a retired judge regarding her possible appointment to the position of attorney-general—if she would act to drop criminal probes against Sara Netanyahu.

Significantly, neither the judge nor the current Head of the Supreme Court, whom she informed of the approach, considered it a matter of any serious substance—and certainly not one entailing criminal intent. Indeed, neither of them felt the need to pursue the matter and certainly not to report it to the police.

This, in itself, would appear to be the ultimate mitigating factor in this case—demonstrating that no malfeasance was at hand.

However, it seems that Bibi-phobia is so intense it can generate some surprising unintended consequences. For the reticence of the two judges appears to have ignited the ire of those who normally consider the judiciary to be the “holiest of holies” in Israeli society—and the ultimate weapon with which to dispatch Netanyahu from power.

Thus, the usually virulent anti-Netanyahu—and equally enthusiastic pro-judiciary— daily, Haaretz, wrote a petulant piece , entitled: “Don’t the Rules Also Apply to Israel’s Supreme Court President…”, tacitly rebuking her for not pursuing the opportunity to skewer the object of their unadulterated abhorrence, Netanyahu.

A layman’s perspective: Criminalizing inferred intent?

I do not know whether or not there is some contorted, esoteric legalistic interpretation of the law by which Netanyahu’s conduct could be deemed grave criminal transgression.

But, I have little doubt that even if such an interpretation does exist, it would leave the overwhelming majority of impartial laymen unpersuaded.

Indeed, despite the massive media blitz on his legitimacy and leadership, the Likud seems to be gaining in strength—at least in the polls—where one actually found it would surge to 34 mandates, far outstripping its closest rival by a whopping 14 mandates.

For, as a layman, it is difficult to avoid the distinct impression that the unrelenting drive to bring an indictment—any indictment—against Netanyahu has long exceeded the bounds of reasonable law enforcement. Thus, it would seem, that where Netanyahu is concerned, the forces of law and order appear be to trying to outlaw every give-and-take interaction in political life, thereby extracting the very essence of political activity itself.

Indeed, one might be excused for raising the suspicion that a desperate attempt is underway to criminalize anything and anybody with any perceived congenial association with Netanyahu —whether professional or personal.

This is deeply disturbing. After all, by what seems to be criminalizing actions—even unperformed—by inferring nefarious intent to them—one is veering perilously close to criminalizing thought.

Food for thought: Bibi, Barghouti & double standards

In observing the public furor over the criminal probes into Netanyahu’s alleged misdeeds, a heretical thought crept into my mind.

Indeed, I could not help wondering: How many of the same champions of the rule of law, clamoring to convict and punish Netanyahu  to the full extent of the law, for accepting cigars and champagne, are also calling for the release Marwan Barghouti, serving five life sentences for murdering Israelis—to allow him contend for the leadership of the Palestinian Authority, so that he can engage in the ultimate act of extorted quid-pro-quo—extorting land for a precarious pledge of peace.

Of course, a little hypocrisy goes a long way…

…………………

Clearly, none of this is intended to convey the impression that Netanyahu is irreplaceable. After all, at some stage the Netanyahu-era will eventually come to an end, and some successor, whether more capable or less so, will be found to run the affairs of the nation.

What, however, is being contended is that, in the absence of some incontrovertible—and incontrovertibly grave—infraction, the composition of the government—or any change therein—should be decided by the polls, not by the police or a politicized press.

Netanyahu was elected as the Prime Minster, not as the Pope. Accordingly, he should be judged primarily on the basis of his political and strategic accomplishments, not his personal morality

What we are witnessing is, in effect, little less than an attempt at a bloodless coup d’état – conducted, not by the military, but by the messianic, indeed manic, mainstream media, buttressed by affiliated like-minded civil society elites, in a frenzied effort to impose their minority worldview on the nation…Enraged by their inability to rally sufficient public support on substantive policy issues, to unseat the object of their visceral enmity, Benjamin Netanyahu, and nonplussed by the tenacity of his “delinquent” hold on the premiership, despite their undisguised loathing, his political rivals have despaired of removing him from office by normal electoral means…Instead, they have descended into an unprecedented nadir of mean-spirited malevolence in Israeli public life….Coup d’état?, February 22, 2015

These are words I wrote, almost exactly three years ago, just prior to Netanyahu’s somewhat unexpected reelection in March 2015. In large measure, they are just as relevant now as they were then.

No uncritical pro-Bibi apologist

As readers who have followed my INTO THE FRAY column will recall, I have never been an uncritical, pro-Bibi apologist.

On the contrary, I have excoriated a number of his policy decisions, regularly and severely, and have even called for his resignation…on matters of policy.

Thus, for example, I strongly condemned his 2009 Bar Ilan speech, in which he accepted the idea of Palestinian statehood – see here and here. Likewise, I was severely critical of his decision to release over 1000 convicted terrorists (2011) to secure the release of captured IDF soldier, Gilad Shalit — and was even more opposed to a subsequent (2013) release of prisoners as a futile gesture to assuage the then-Secretary of State, John Kerry, in the vain hope of coaxing Mahmoud Abbas into renewing negotiations — see here and here.

I vehemently disapproved of his ill-advised attempt at rapprochement with Turkey — particularly the compensation paid for the casualties incurred when Israeli commandoes had to defend themselves against attempts to lynch them on the Turkish vessel, Mavi Marmara, trying to breach the maritime quarantine of the terror enclave in Gaza.

Perhaps my most serious—and ongoing—criticism of Netanyahu is his enduring failure to adequately address the problem of international delegitimization of Israel, by refusing to allot adequate resources to initiate and sustain a strategic diplomatic offensive to confront, curtail and counter the global assault on the legitimacy of the Jewish state — see most recently here.

But for all my sharp disagreements with him, my criticism was always focused exclusively on matters of substantive policy, never on matters of persona or personality.

Smokes? Hootch? Really?!

Looking back at my 2015 article today, it is surprising (or not) just how little has changed since then.

Today, just as then, it is staggering just how petty and vindictive the vicious vendetta against Israel’s longest serving prime minister is—and how utterly irrelevant its alleged incriminations are to both the challenges the nation is facing and to Netanyahu’s fitness, as PM, to meet them…

Indeed, much of what I wrote then is—except for several differences of nuance and detail—entirely pertinent today: “Rather than engaging in a substantive debate on how to conduct the affairs of the nation, they have embarked on a dishonorable – the less charitable might say “disgraceful” – attempt to oust a prime minister by means of a maelstrom of petty and pernicious ad hominem attacks…directed not only against Netanyahu but…against his spouse, who – whatever her character defects may (or may not) be—is hardly a relevant factor in determining his ability to govern.”

Indeed, as I pointed out: “Devoid of any persuasive policy alternative of real substance, and of any alternative candidate of authentic stature, Netanyahu’s…detractors have mobilized to exploit their unelected positions of power and privilege to launch a massive media blitz against him and his wife – with the naked intention of degrading his political stature by denigrating his/her alleged personal excesses.”

Thus, after over a year of intensive investigations, that spanned several continents and reportedly costing the Israeli taxpayer tens of millions of shekels, all that the police could come up with is that Netanyahu accepted an unseemly amount of smokes and hootch from his long-time buddies—in exchange for which, at the end of the day, they received precisely zilch, nada, zippo!

Really??

Ignoring ISIS, Iran and Islamists…

Back in 2015 I expressed astonishment that: “… in a country…facing the specter of a nuclear Iran, an ascendant Islamic State threatening stability in Jordan…the deployment of Iranian-bolstered Hezbollah forces on the Golan, growing jihadist dominance of Sinai, and burgeoning anti-Semitism across Europe, the national media somehow found it appropriate to focus almost exclusively on ‘strategically crucial’ issues such as who received (gasp) $1,000 paid for recycled bottles from the PM’s official residence, whether Sara Netanyahu’s hairdos were excessively costly, or whether the prime minister’s garden furniture had been purchased in strict accordance with prescribed guidelines.”

My astonishment at the nature of the recent investigation remains undiminished. Indeed, as I remarked then: “While I would not wish to belittle, in any way, the need for personal integrity of public officials and for keeping a stringent lookout to ensure the judicious use of taxpayers’ hard earned money – what we witnessed in recent days was not a display of unbiased investigative journalism…It was a carefully choreographed and coordinated attempt at a political putsch by the press.”

The distinct impression is that the same anti-Bibi choreography persists today—bolstered by what is looking increasing like a contrived and politically motivated police investigation.

Guilty of…serial impotence??

After all, even if the police allegations are correct and Netanyahu did accept an inordinate amount of perishable merchandize to indulge his hedonistic tastes, it appears that he was resoundingly unsuccessful in providing any “quid” in return for any ill-gotten “quo”.

Accordingly, if Netanyahu did, in fact have any untoward motives with regard to improperly advancing the interests of plutocratic pals, the most he seems to be guilty of in this regard is serial incompetence in delivering the goods in exchange for the goodies.

It is of course, no secret that, in my eyes, Bibi is a deeply flawed prime minister. However, in my eyes, he is also the least deeply flawed of all his potential rivals who are possible candidates to replace him–particularly the currently leading contender, Yair Lapid, who now has apparently emerged as a key witness in the investigation against the man he wishes to depose.

You couldn’t make this stuff up!

After all, given Lapid’s failure to unseat Netanyahu in a reported “putsch” attempt while serving as a minister in his government (which led to his sacking), and his failure to do so at the ballot box in the 2015 elections, one might well be forgiven for allowing the suspicion to creep into one’s mind that he was only too happy to contribute to his nemesis’s downfall by non-parliamentary means.

Troubling questions

I do not want to dwell on the legal (or legalistic) intricacies of the suspicions against Netanyahu, as I have neither the information nor the professional expertise to do so.

However, as a reasonably well-informed layman, a prima facie perusal of the published allegations raise several troubling questions.

For example, if—as Lapid apparently claims—when he was serving as Finance Minister, Netanyahu tried to improperly induce him to extend a law passed by the Olmert government granting tax benefits to wealthy associates, why then did he not expose such malfeasance earlier, instead of waiting over three years for the police to prompt him?

This sense of unease is heightened not only by critiques of several prominent lawyers, who talk of “serious gaps” in the file submitted by the police, but even more so by reports of a “deep rift” between the police and the prosecution as to the thoroughness (or lack thereof) of the investigation and its findings.

But beyond the claims and counter-claims of impropriety and charges of unjustified discriminatory selective enforcement against Netanyahu (but not against rival politicians), there is the “minor” question of…common sense.

For even if one concedes that the Prime Minister was somewhat cavalier in accepting expensive gifts from his well-heeled friends over a period of a decade—when he was both in and out of office—common sense would seem to dictate that public censure and punitive disciplinary measures would be far more appropriate than criminal prosecution and removal from office.

Thus, when the next election comes, Netanyahu would have to seek renewed approval of his party and the public—in light of, or despite, the exposure of his hedonistic lapses.

A call for common sense

This of course is not a call to condone excesses of those in power, or diminish the imperative for clean government—but a call for reasonable and proportionate response to alleged infringements, in light of the underlying intent and de facto consequences.

The merits of this approach are intensely magnified when such alleged infringements are compared to the threats and challenges Israel faces today. With Iran at the gates, greatly empowered by the Obama-sponsored nuclear deal (which Netanyahu rightly and courageously strove to thwart, only to have his efforts undermined by those who now seek his removal); with an ever-more aggressive Iranian-proxy, Hezbollah, deploying in the Golan; with a Hamas-controlled Gaza edging ever-closer to confrontation; with Sinai descending into ungovernable brutality; and with Israel fighting for international legitimacy; it seems almost inconceivable that the government should be thrown into turmoil over cigars and champagne…even if, as charged, Netanyahu did act to help his friend, with a long record of service to the nation, with his visa arrangement in the US.

Indeed, given the ilk of Israel’s enemies, it is hardly implausible to conjecture that they would be greatly heartened by the spectacle of such disarray—and, emboldened by the belief that the government is distracted by such domestic strife, feel that the time is ripe to test the Jewish state with coordinated aggression.

Prime minister, not Pope

As I mentioned previously, I have no personal or ideological allegiance to Netanyahu. Indeed, some might believe I even have cause to feel slighted by him.

However, none of this should obscure the decades of his distinguished service to the country –as a special forces warrior, an accomplished diplomat, an astute finance minister, a brilliant foreign minister and as Israel’s longest serving prime minister.

Of course, this does not put him above the law, but it surely should put any allegation that he purposely acted to harm the national interest for personal greed in perspective.

After all, Netanyahu was elected as the Prime Minster, not as the Pope. Accordingly, he should be judged primarily on the basis of his political and strategic accomplishments, not his personal morality–and his capacity to deal with the challenges facing the country should weigh far more than his ascetics or his hedonism.

The real casualty

There are testing times ahead for Israeli society. Beset by harrowing external threats and what is liable to be unprecedented domestic tumult, there are unlikely to be any positive outcomes that emerge from the current furor.

If Netanyahu is not indicted, or indicted and acquitted, it will be a massive blow to the credibility of the nation’s law enforcement.

If he is convicted and forced out of office, many will see this as naked politicization of law enforcement in the country, in effect, a legalistic coup d’état, designed to annul the outcome of elections–and will deal a mortal blow to their faith in the democratic process.

Either way, there will be no winners—and the real casualty will be the public’s belief in the intuitions of state in Israel.