By MARTIN SHERMAN
There are only two possibilities regarding Finance Minister Liberman’s involvement in what has become known as the “Yisrael Beiteinu affair”; neither bodes well for Israel.
Power doesn’t corrupt people; people corrupt power—William Gaddis (1922-1998).
Much has been aired about the glaring defects of the current Israeli government—about how it rewards deceit, how it disregards disloyalty, and how it undermines the founding precepts of Zionism. But one of its more egregious aspects, generally overlooked, surfaced albeit obliquely last week with news of the imprisonment of several senior members of Finance Minister Avigdor Liberman’s faction, Yisrael Beiteinu.
“One of the largest cases ever of political corruption”
Former deputy minister Faina Kirschenbaum of the Yisrael Beiteinu faction began her 10-year sentence at the Neve Tirtza women’s prison in Ramle, for her role in arranging an extensive kickback scheme, widely considered one of the largest cases of political corruption the country has seen. Kirshenbaum, 66, was sentenced in July following her conviction for bribery, tax offenses, money laundering, fraud, and breach of trust.
The Times of Israel reports that the charges against her involved inappropriately funneling large sums of money to various organizations, which allegedly made dubious “nepotistic appointments”, and channeled some of the funds to public service officials in the form of cash kickbacks and benefits.
Apart from her prison sentence, the longest ever imposed on a serving or past Knesset member for corruption offenses, she was also fined almost a million shekels (over a quarter-million dollars).
Convicted along with Kirschenbaum and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment was David Godovsky, Yisrael Beiteinu’s chief of staff and reportedly Liberman’s “right-hand man”, on charges that included bribery, facilitating bribes, conspiracy to commit a crime, and fraudulently obtaining benefits under aggravated circumstances.
Kirschenbaum was in charge of the party’s so-called “coalition funds”, received by all parties in the government, which amounted to 1.2 billion shekels ($380 million) in public funds, allocated at the discretion of the party. According to the court’s ruling, Kirschenbaum took 2 million shekels in bribes for herself and her party. Citing from the ruling, Haaretz noted: “…the accused [i.e. Kirschenbaum] bypassed proper norms of governance, taking public funds for her personal use … she distributed the booty she extricated from public coffers generously among her friends and family members, as well as taking some of it herself.”
Liberman: The elephant in the room
Apart from the harshness of the sentences, what provoked raised eyebrows was an element perplexingly and perturbingly absent from the entire episode: Any sign of the involvement of Yisrael Beiteinu boss, Avigdor Liberman in Bennett’s crazy-quilted coalition.
For example, Baruch Kra, a well-known legal commentator wrote: “…we must discuss the elephant in the room—or more precisely, the elephant in the public coffers—MK Avigdor Liberman.”
He points out: “Liberman, leader of the party from the day he established it, was not a suspect in this episode, was not questioned, did not even testify. This is one of the puzzling lapses in this episode—because whichever way you look at it, it involved the coalition funds allocated to the party he headed.”
Kra ponders: “Did he really not know anything of what happened there? Of what took place there?”—and goes on to refer to the 2016 testimony of one of the defendants-turned-state-witness, who describes how money was transferred, concealed in parcels of fruit and cosmetics, to a Yisrael Beiteinu lobbyist, reportedly with the full knowledge of Liberman.
Pointedly he asks: “Was this not sufficient to at least summon Liberman to testify?”—and raised the question of whether the prosecution was still so shell-shocked from their failure, after a decade-and-half long investigation, to prove charges against Liberman in a previous proceeding, that it did not bother to probe into Liberman’s awareness of what went on in his party.
Mysteriously disappearing witnesses
Similar—indeed, even more somber—sentiments were expressed by former Yisrael Beiteinu MK and erstwhile Liberman colleague, Danny Ayalon. Ayalon, who served as deputy Foreign Minister on behalf of Yisrael Beiteinu, and Israel’s ambassador to the US, wondered why Liberman had not been indicted. Hinting heavily at foul play during Liberman’s previous legal entanglement, he wrote: “There were three witnesses who disappeared…one witness recanted on her early testimony…” (See also here.)
Ayalon speculated that there might be “another reason” that Kirschenbaum opted not to implicate her boss and not to provide further information on his involvement: “…perhaps the smell of prison scares Kirschenbaum less than ending her life in some other way [sic].”
Even more explicit was a column by investigative journalist, Yoav Yitzhak, who argued that Kirschenbaum (and Godovsky) could have received lighter sentences, had they “agreed to provide information on Liberman’s part in the offenses committed in this affair.” However, according to Yitzhak, they both preferred to “keep their silence because of their concern for their personal safety and their wish to protect their families [sic]—and their desire to receive in the future—while serving their time in prison—compensation from Liberman and/or oligarchs who are associates of his.”
Yitzhak provides a list of half a dozen witnesses who were supposed to testify against Liberman in an earlier episode and met mysterious deaths, allegedly committed suicide, or suffered sudden lapses of memory, preventing them from recalling previous information they had provided. He makes the case that the disturbing fate of previous witnesses and the hope of material compensation for loyalty to Liberman compelled Kirschenbaum and Godovsky to hold their tongues rather than implicate the Yisrael Beiteinu head in any wrongdoing, in which they were involved.
Clumsy clutz or Cosa Nostra capo?
Indeed, anyone even remotely familiar with the inner works of the Yisrael Beiteinu party would be aware of the highly centralized manner of its functioning and in which its decision-making process works. Accordingly, it is difficult to accept the fact that Liberman, who was closely involved with, and certainly aware of, everything and anything of consequence that transpired within the party would be oblivious to the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars accruing to the party—and would not at least be actively involved in approving their allocation.
It is thus difficult to disagree with Yisrael-Hayom journalist, Ariel Kahane, who found it “astonishing that the party chairman [Liberman] was not even questioned” following testimony that he was fully apprised of the illicit money transfers.
There are clearly only two possibilities regarding Liberman’s involvement in what has become known as the “Yisrael Beiteinu affair”.
The first is that, despite it being highly implausible, Liberman was unaware of the illegal monetary operations in his party.
The second—and more plausible—alternative is that Liberman was aware—perhaps even involved—in the illegal shenanigans that went on in his party.
Neither option bodes well for Israel.
If the former is true, the nation’s finance minister is hopelessly incompetent in managing the financial affairs of his own tightly controlled party, which necessarily augurs ill for his ability to manage the nation’s finances.
If the latter is correct, the man controlling the nation’s coffers is little more than a mafioso-style gangster, casting a Cosa Nostra-like shadow of fear over party members, who would rather languish in jail than risk the consequences of testifying against their “capo”…
Just another aspect of Bennett’s “government of change”…
Martin Sherman is the founder & executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies
Oy day. Of all the thirty or so countries in the world that have some claim to be humane, representative, constitutional democracies, Israel is probably the most misgoverned. Possibly the most corrupt. I have long suspected there was something wrong with Leiberman, but I never realized it went this far.
Very remarkable story, but I thought Dr. Sherman was going somewhere else with this. So, who might have pursued this case and overlooked the possible criminal nature of the case against this party leader? Recall that Dr. Sherman notes that Lieberman
There had to be a reason for this level of protection afforded Lieberman. He could not control the prosecution from even interviewing him. He had, in fact, been under investigation before and Bibi actually pulled his fat out of the fryer. Could it be that this lack of interest in pursuing Lieberman was the reason that Lieberman refused for two years to sit with Bibi.
Indeed the principled decision for Lieberman to withdraw from the 2018 govt due to Bibi’s lack of response to 460 rockets seems to have waned in the 2yrs that followed. Oddly enough, this same Lieberman was quite open to paying Abbas a stately sum and granting land to the Bedouin shortly after Israel was assaulted by a coordination of pogroms and over 4,000 rockets from Gaza.
It does seem reasonable that the Attorney General would have some input into the interrogation of Lieberman, one way or the other, and what better way “to keep a danger to society”, as Mandleblit phrased it, in a position of constant and growing political vulnerability. Recall Mandleblit stated that “we suddenly found ourselves in a war over the legitimacy of the Attorney General.” What would an ambitious AG desperate to vanquish Bibi, even seeking receipts for ice cream sales, what limit would he place on winning this war when, as he stated, he recognized it was a war over “the DNA of the Jewish people and the state of Israel”?
Additionally, it does seem remarkably dubious that Kirschenbaum might have been offered a lighter sentence for testifying against her party leader, when Lieberman was never even actually interviewed regarding his possible role in her crime or what he knew of the matter. It honestly seems the fix was in for Lieberman and if any offer was made to Kirschenbaum, it was known she would not accept it. Or does Lieberman really just have so much power that the state would not dare question him as a principle element in this massive fraud of state funds.
Definitely another aspect of Bennett’s “government of change”.
Interesting…