The Irony of Netanyahu’s Crisis

by John Podhoretz, COMMENTARY

The indictments of Benjamin Netanyahu are a proximate cause of the political tumult into which Israel has fallen, with a third election almost certain after two inconclusive preceding tallies. The news that Israeli police had recommended the indictments played a key role in Netanyahu’s decision to call early elections in the first place—so that he could secure a mandate that would include the passage of a new law granting prime ministers immunity from prosecution while in office. As a 5-year-old Israeli relative of mine once informed me about my efforts at weight loss, “it don’t working.”

The indictments are sketchy. Two of them involve supposed schemes to get favorable press coverage, neither of which went anywhere. The third involves the idea that he was bribed by longtime fixer Arnon Milchan with cigars and champagne. When investigations of Netanyahu began in 2016, one of the matters being looked into was highly incendiary, having to do with whether the prime minister had favored relatives when it came to matters relating to new oil fields and the manufacture of submarines for the Israeli navy. Such questions go to the heart of Israel’s national security, and if it could have been proved that Netanyahu had compromised that security in any way, he would be toast now.

It was the leak of those investigations that made this matter seem different in kind from other political scandals in Israel’s history—even though the idea that Bibi would compromise national security in this fashion didn’t seem believable. But those matters were dropped, leaving only the prospect of Israel’s longest-serving prime minister being ousted in disgrace for cigars, champagne, and a foolish idea of negotiating for more favorable media treatment. (His wife Sara has already pled guilty for—get this—having ordered catered meals on the Israeli government’s dime when there was a government-paid chef already working at the prime minister’s house.)

In a classic political Rorschach test, you can view these as horrible examples of deep corruption. But, generally speaking, many if not most people who do so have personal or ideological beefs against Netanyahu and see all this as the way to get him out of power. Or you can see them as an act of revenge against Netanyahu by one of the almost countless number of Israeli political figures who were once allied with him. That’s Bibi’s claim against attorney general Avichai Mandalblit, whose original appointment in 2015 by Netanyahu was viewed by anti-Bibi forces as the installation of an ally who would protect him from precisely the sort of thing that has now happened.

So the ironies abound. It’s more than merely conceivable that Netanyahu can beat these charges in a court of law, but can he defend himself and remain prime minister at the same time? The very idea of granting immunity from prosecution to an elected leader during his tenure is to prevent distractions of this sort—on the grounds that the country’s interest is more important. You can see how this might work at a time when Israel is girding itself for a possible two-front war against Iranian proxies.

Bibi would seem to be the best person to be at the helm at this moment. But statutorily, that might not be the case. Given that he has been unable to form a coalition—twice—he is effectively running a caretaker government. It’s far from clear what specific claim he has on the PM’s office given that fact—or that, given what has happened, he has an argument he needs protection from prosecution because he is the legitimately elected leader. The horrible fact is that Israel might need him more than ever, but it won’t be able to have him.

John Podhoretz is the editor of Commentary.

November 23, 2019 | 4 Comments »

Leave a Reply

4 Comments / 4 Comments

  1. @ Frank Adam:

    Frank, your memory is a little faulty, natural after such a long time. But I recall that there was much more to it. Leah Rabin said there was only about $2000 in the a/c which was never used, or given to needy kids. Then it was discovered that she was lying, that there were a couple of a/cs owned by both her and Rabin himself, totalling $20-25,000.which they were using on a regular basis, mostly to buy goodies…

    They were fined a couple of hundred thousand shekels, as I recall. If Leah had kept her mouth shut, he would have had no need to resign, but just plead to an oversight.

  2. Rabin was obliged to yield office for the sake of $1500 in his wife’s account in the US. BB is in for a lot more Whiggery – even allowing for inflation.
    The most patriotic thing BB could do NOW is to resign and go to court and sort that through and meantime let the country form a government and get on with what needs doing.

  4. This from rabbi-professor-lawyer Dov Fischer in Arutz Sheva:

    It is a shame that some Israelis seem intent on consuming our own. American major legal scholars like Prof. Alan Dershowitz and others have written publicly that there is no such thing as bribery — the central charge in case 4000 — when the “pay off” desired simply is better media coverage. Likewise, a political leader can advocate whatever legislation he wishes.

    For goodness sakes, politicians everywhere in the world always promote legislation to assist, enrich, and help their friends — especially in Israel, a country that was dominated for decades by the shadow of “protektzia.” That is why people often make friendships with politicians or with people who are friends with politicians. “Do you know Chaim the City Councilman? Can you ask him to help me get a traffic light on my street?” Or: “Aren’t you friends with the Governor? Can you help me get him to assist me with a license for my business? I can make a nice donation to his election campaign.” For goodness sakes, so many of the biggest donors make monetary gifts to politicians in exchange for access and favors. Just think of the “Clinton Foundation.” Pay to play. Money and politics goes hand-in-hand, literally. Minor donors contribute to politicians they believe in, but the mega-donors buy access and favors. Everyone knows this, and it is so legal that it is transparent.

    In the present cases, for example, Bibi received champagne and cigars from long-time acquaintances, and he helped a guy who successfully produced American movies get a visa to get back into America. So what? And he advocated legislation that would give tax enhancements to a guy if he brought his millions of dollars back into Israel. So what? That happens every day in America.

    Here in California, the Teachers’ Union makes huge donations to Democrats, and then they pass laws that hurt children’s education in the schools but protect incompetent teachers and increases their benefits. Hollywood people make massive donations and hold millionaires’ parties for Democrats, and then the politicians pass laws that reduce or cancel certain state corporate business taxes for the movie makers. So Case 1000 is ridiculous.

    And then Case 2000: Bibi is accused of advancing legislation to help Yediot Achronot at the expense of Israel Hayom when, in fact, he never even brought the legislation?

    And Case 4000: He advocated regulations that would help a guy in Bezeq get enormously richer if he gave Bibi better coverage in Walla!? So what? If the voters think the regulation was wrong, then vote him out.