How to Understand the Charges against Benjamin Netanyahu

March 4 2019

Last week, the Israeli attorney general, Avichai Mandelblit, announced his intention, pending a formal hearing, to indict Prime Minister Netanyahu for bribery and the vaguely defined crime of breach of public trust. The hearing will take place after the April 9 national election, in which the prime minister remains a front runner. At issue in two of the three charges is the accusation that Netanyahu offered favorable policies in exchange for positive coverage in the press. Avi Bell argues that Mandelblit’s case rests on seriously stretching the definition of the crimes in question:

One way to look at the investigation is as a neutral application of a new understanding of the traditional crimes of bribery and breach of public trust. Under this interpretation, Mandelblit’s capacious understanding . . . may be unprecedented, but will now be applied across the board to all public officials and politicians. The horrifying result will be police oversight of nearly all interactions between the media and public officials.

When the evening news devotes fifteen minutes of generally positive coverage to [Netanyahu’s challenger] Benny Gantz, or to Mandelblit himself, producers and reporters may have to expect a summons to a police interrogation where they will be asked to demonstrate the purity of their motives. Politicians and public officials in constant touch with the media—that is, everyone in public life—will always find themselves on the verge of conviction of the felony of taking bribes, or, at least, “breach of public trust.” The center of Israeli political life will move to interrogation rooms in police stations.

The other interpretation is that the investigations should be seen as Netanyahu and his supporters paint them: special rules that are meant to apply only to Netanyahu. Israeli political life will not move to the police station, but will face the constant threat that law enforcement authorities may suddenly decide to apply “Bibi rules.” The harm to Israeli democracy of double standards in criminal law based on prosecutor’s will would be incalculable. And law-enforcement officials could never be seen as nonpartisan again.

There’s ample evidence for both interpretations of the prosecution—neutral and partisan—but it doesn’t really matter which is right: both indicate a severe crisis in Israel’s democratic governance.

Welcome to Mosaic

Register now to get two more stories free

Register Now

Already a subscriber? Sign in now

Read more at Tablet

More about: Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel & Zionism, Israeli politics

 

Understanding the Background of the White House Ruling on Anti-Semitism and the Civil Rights Act

Dec. 13 2019

On Wednesday, the president signed an executive order allowing federal officials to extend the protections of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to Jews. (The order, promptly condemned for classifying Jews as a separate nationality, did nothing of the sort.) In 2010, Kenneth Marcus called for precisely such a ruling in the pages of Commentary, citing in particular the Department of Education’s lax response to a series of incidents at the University of California at Irvine, where, among much elase, Jewish property was vandalized and Jewish students were pelted with rocks, called “dirty Jew” and other epithets, and were told, “Jewish students are the plague of mankind.”

Sign up to read more

You've read all your free articles for this month

Register

Sign up now for unlimited access to the best in Jewish thought, culture, and politics

Already have an account? Log in now

Read more at Commentary

More about: Anti-Semitism, Israel on campus, U.S. Politics