On Thursday, February 28, 2019, Israeli Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit announced his plan to indict Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. PM Netanyahu denies any wrongdoing and believes that he is being persecuted by the country's left wing. Before he can be formally indicted, he is entitled to a hearing. If he is tried, he would be the first sitting Prime Minister in Israel to face prosecution.
Packer (L) and Milchan may be considered witnesses in Netanyahu's hearing.
Illegal Gifts Affair (also known as Case 1000)
In the past, Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan, in partnership with Australian billionaire James Packer, delivered expensive gifts of cigars, jewelry, and pink champagne to Netanyahu's official Jerusalem residence. The price of the bribes totaled more than 280,000 US dollars. In return, Netanyahu encouraged the extension of a ten year tax exemption to expatriate Israelis returning to the country and helped Milchan receive a US work visa. The Finance Ministry blocked the legislations, saying that it "was against the national interest." If the legislation was passed, it would have financially benefitted Milchan. Recently, Mandelblit announced that he would not press charges on Milchan, despite his central role in the alleged case of corruption. Netanyahu denies the allegations, and both billionaires say their gifts were not intended as bribes. Mandelblit decided that Netanyahu should be charged with fraud and breach of trust for his involvement with the gifts.
Case 2000
In addition to Case 1000, Netanyahu was also accused of exploiting his relationship with US casino owner Sheldon Adelson to curb unfavorable media coverage of his government. An agreement was alleged negotiated with Arnon Mozes, publisher of Yedioth Ahronoth, a major Israeli daily newspaper over the phone. In the alleged deal, Mozes would ease off of his paper's critical coverage of Netanyahu in exchange for the Israeli Prime Minister pushing Adelson to limit the circulation of the Israel Hayom - a free American newspaper who rivals Yedioth Ahronoth. Although the deal was discussed over the phone, with details recorded by Ari Harow, the PM's former chief of staff, it was never consummated. Netanyahu claims the deal was a joke. Adelson says he was never aware of any alleged deal between the Israeli PM and Moses and is angered by the idea. Netanyahu is to be charged with fraud and breach of trust. Mozes is to be charged with bribery.
US billionaire Sheldon Adelson (L) and Netanyahu
Case 4000
From 2014-2017, Netanyahu served as communications minister, in addition to prime minister. Shaul Elovitch, was a former chairman and shareholder of the Bezeq group, parent company to Walla, one of Israel's leading news sites. He is also a close friend of Netanyahu and has been accused of ordering Walla to provide more favorable coverage of the Netanyahu family. Mr. Netanyahu is accused of offering favors to the news company in exchange for better coverage, especially during the 2013 and 2015 elections. Walla surpressed and softened critical reports of Mr. and Mrs. Netanyahu, covered up stories with flattering pictures, and met many of the couple's demands. Netanyahu is to be charged with bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. Mr. Elovitch may face prosecution for bribery, obstruction of justice, money laundering and security violations. Despite Mrs. Netanyahu being heavily involved with the demands given to Walla, there is "insufficient evidence" that she understood the official action being returned, so she will not be charged, although the state attorney still believes Mrs. Netanyahu should be charged with bribery.
If Netanyahu wins the upcoming Israeli elections on April 9th, he will be the longest serving prime minister in Israeli history.
1. Variety
2. Washington Post
Reaction:
I think that the current situation shows the lack of stability in the Israeli government. Just like in the US, there is a strong presence of "fake news" or bias reports that can easily change the public viewpoint on a country's leader. If the attorney general is indicting the prime minister, there must be other secrets that are being kept from the public. Given the alleged crimes Netanyahu is being tried for, I think he should step down from the upcoming election given the political unrest surrounding him right now.
Connection:
This topic connects to our current unit about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Depending on how the situation resolves, the way Israel handles the conflict may change. If Mr. Netanyahu losses the upcoming election, Israel's government may become more or less willing to compromise, possibly leading to a more peaceful state in the Middle East. If Israel elects a new prime minister, the country may become more unstable and susceptible to attacks by enemy countries.
Questions:
1. Do you think the grounds on which Netanyahu are being indicted on are fair?
2. Given Netanyahu's positive relations with Trump, do you think the US will be involved with the cases or support a side?
3. If you were in Trump's position, would you choose to support PM Netanyahu or AG Mandelblit?
The grounds on which Netanyahu is being indicted on are fair because the investigation has been going on for 2 years, which is a reasonable amount of time to collect enough evidence. Evidence against Netanyahu does suggest that he bribed others to his advantage. Seeing how Netanyahu is only going through an indictment and not yet being formally charged, I think the indictment is justified as it is a fair legal process and does not have risks. As stated in the original article, Netanyahu has to go through a hearing where he can defend himself. I do not think the US will be involved with the cases or take a side on this matter. According to NBC, Trump himself said that Netanyahu is strong, tough, and smart, but he did not comment on the indictment (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/israel-prime-minister-benjamin-netanyahu-indicted-bribe-fraud-charges-n977571). If I were Trump, I would support neither Netanyahu nor Mandelblit. The US should not meddle with other countries' internal affairs. It is the responsibility of Israel's trusted officials to make decisions regarding the cases. The US should remain neutral.
ReplyDeleteI think that the US should stay neutral in their response to Mandelblit’s accusation, as the issues regarding this conflict seem to be mostly internal, and the US has no right to meddle in the affairs of outside nations. Yet even with a lack of involvement from the US, I also believe that both Netanyahu and the state of Israel should see this appearance of cases as time for a change in power within the Israeli government. PM Netanyahu has held a position of power throughout a lot of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and while he has done many good things for his people and the conflict, his influence has not proved to be substantial, as tensions are still high and there seems to be no sign of a better future for both groups. His government has been highly criticized and with no obvious hope for peace a turn of power in one of the most involved nations within the conflict could be the thing this war needs in order to get it on a path towards peace. This applies especially with the revelation of these accusations, as a nation that is so war torn and facing so much conflict can not afford a leader that is corrupt.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-18008697
I agree with your idea on what the US stance on the situation should be. I am glad that the US appears to not be taking a side on the indictment, as it could potentially affect the United State's role in other conflicts in the Middle East. I also agree that the indictment is fair. Given the claims made against Netanyahu, there is enough evidence to prove he bribed others to make political advancements. Despite the instability that may come with a change in leader, I think it is best for the country if Netanyahu either steps down or loses the upcoming election.
ReplyDeleteI think the grounds of Prime Minister Netanyahu are fair because the investigations on each case have been looked through for several months and years. Each case provides enough information to see each person's gains and what motives they would have by bribing PM Netanyahu. Shaul Elovitch was arrested in February 2018 in connection with case 4,000 and the attorney generals office released their statement "It is alleged that Mr Elovitch acted to significantly and substantively alter press coverage published on the [Walla] website so as to favour Mr Netanyahu," (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-47409739). This shows the collective evidence that they have againist the Prime Minister and his involvment with the case. I agree with Claires comment above how the U.S. should show a neutral stance to these allegations as it's mostly and internal conflict and is something the U.S. should not try to meddle with as it will most likely damage relations with other Middle Eastern countries.
ReplyDeleteI think that at this point, despite Netanyahu's past helpful and meaningful actions pushed forward for Israel, he is no longer providing his country almost any benefit. He's simply demonstrating his corrupt ways and then attempting to hide them. Considering the great detail into which these cases go and the amount of time that they took digging up information and evidence, Netanyahu is being indicted on completely fair grounds. I don't know what side that the U.S. should take on Israel as a whole, but they should oppose Netanyahu from the standpoint of of him ruining the possibility for greater peace in the Middle East and for a better Israeli state.
ReplyDeleteNetanyahu's corruption is very evident-- to say that the platform of his indictment is unfair would be turning a blind eye to that behavior and becoming a participant (or at least a bystander) in that same corruption. I found it concerning that Netanyahu would attempt to play off his suspicious media coverage deal as a "joke," because freedom of speech and a nation's political state are, in fact, a very serious matter. It seems rather important for a prominent political authority figure to demonstrate primary concern for his country instead of his personal interests. Netanyahu's defensiveness-- specifically his insistence that he is being unfairly targeted by the left wing-- almost further indicates that he has something to hide.
ReplyDeleteIn reference to the second question, Trump's generally positive relationship with Netanyahu might result in the following scenario: the official US political stance may be unsupportive or at least neutral towards the accusations against Netanyahu, but some individual members of the government as well as much of the American population will be more disconcerted by Netanyahu's obvious corruption, and rightly so. Already, congresspeople (namely freshman House Democrats like Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib) have been identified as anti-semetic for their views on Netanyahu and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (https://www.jpost.com/In-Jerusalem/The-US-midterms-and-Iran-sanctions-572591). I'm curious about how (and if), going forward, criticism of the Israeli government and criticism of Jewish people and Judaism (anti-semitism) will be distinguished from one and other. In any case, I don't believe that fair condemnation of a government or political figure can be equated to prejudice against that state's people or beliefs as a whole.