Money giveaway scheme highlights discord
Absent a last-minute coronavirus-related delay, on Sunday morning the country will once again witness a hearing against its sitting prime minister in the bribery case against Benjamin Netanyahu.
Just as the indictment against Netanyahu– represented by Amit Hadad and recently added Yossi Segev – was a major cause of the 18-month election deadlock, the trial will hover as a cloud over virtually all major government decisions for the foreseeable future.
Picking up from the opening hearing on May 24, this hearing is supposed to be decisive in setting the schedule for when the Jerusalem District Court will start hearing witnesses.
The trial schedule could have a huge impact on Netanyahu’s transfer of power to Alternate Prime Minister Benny Gantz in November 2021, as well as what Netanyahu’s status will be after that transfer.
The other defendants are Bezeq and Walla owner Shaul Elovitch and his wife, Iris, (represented by Jacques Chen), as well as Yediot
At the end of May, with new COVID19 cases down to just several dozen a day, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took to Facebook to announce some glad tidings.
Smiling broadly and looking relaxed, the prime minister told citizens his government was easing the restrictions enacted in March to halt the pandemic, and opening parks and swimming pools, cafes, restaurants and pubs.
“Get out, get some air, return to normality, have a cup of coffee, have a beer, have fun,” suggested Netanyahu happily.
During that welcome announcement, the prime minister noted that, critically, these measures would also help stimulate the economy, helping small business owners, getting people back to work and greasing the wheels of economic endeavor.
How times have changed.
Fast forward two months, and new COVID-19 cases are approaching 2,000
a day, the economy is going backward, businesses are going bankrupt and the atmosphere in the country is mutinous.
Mass demonstrations have been staged not only in Tel Aviv, bastion of liberal opposition to Netanyahu, but, Tuesday night, in Jerusalem too, outside the prime minister’s residence by angry people from across the political spectrum, united by their economic pain.
Netanyahu’s approval ratings have plummeted as a consequence, with 61% of the public dissatisfied with his leadership over the crisis, according to a Channel 13 poll this week.
And so, on Wednesday night, Netanyahu, now stony-faced and grim, announced a monetary grant worth NIS 6 billion, which will gift up to NIS 3,000 per family, regardless of their financial circumstances.
Why this munificent economic largesse?
The prime minister’s explanation, similar to his May announcement, was to get the economy moving, saying the money would encourage people to go out and buy things and “consume,” saying this would stimulate business and employment.
Although free money is not something many people usually object to, there was, however, an outcry against the plan, with Bank of Israel governor Amir Yaron insisting there are “more efficient ways” of creating economic demand.
Whether or not families would indeed go on a spending splurge during an unprecedented global pandemic and with many jobs still in danger is also debatable, while it appears unclear where citizens might go to enjoy the proceeds of this new grant given imminent new lockdown measures.
Meanwhile, senior government officials, including Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi and reportedly Finance Ministry officials as well, panned the plan for giving away money indiscriminately to families who have not been adversely affected by the pandemic and not targeting the poor and unemployed.
Even Netanyahu’s stalwart political allies, the ultra-Orthodox, criticized the scheme, saying it made no sense to give to wealthy families as well as poor.
And the accusations also came thick and fast, with numerous commentators and politicians accusing Netanyahu of economic populism, seeking to “buy off” public anger by showering money on the citizenry at large.
Whatever the true motivations behind Netanyahu’s newfound financial munificence, it does not appear that the plan has widespread backing in either the political or economic realms, and will struggle to gain approval in cabinet when brought to a vote next week.
What the proposal has done however is highlight once again the government’s haphazard response to this public health crisis, as well as the discord and dysfunction within it, at a time when the precise opposite is needed. •