PM’s narrative on public corruption
After months of following public statements by Benjamin Netanyahu and his lawyers, and reviewing extensive documents and off-record conversations with a wide range of sources, the prime minister’s narrative can finally be pieced together in extreme detail.
The Jerusalem Post has learned that Netanyahu will attack nearly every point in the 57-page charge sheet head on, starting with Case 4000’s key state’s witnesses and former top aides to the prime minister Shlomo Filber and Nir Hefetz. In Case 4000 – the “Bezeq-Walla Affair” – Netanyahu is accused of influencing government telecommunication’s policy to help Shaul Elovitch who owned Bezeq in return for positive coverage by the media outlet Walla, also owned by Elovitch.
The following is a guide to the prime minister’s likely responses to the array of claims against him:
1. Claim: Filber as a witness will sink Netanyahu because he had absolutely zero to gain, and got nothing, from helping Bezeq owner Shaul Elovitch get rich from a merger with Yes, other than following the prime minister’s orders as part of a bribery scheme.
Response: Although Filber accuses Netanyahu of giving him directives regarding
his treatment of Bezeq – and brought documents to Elovitch in August 2015 relating to coverage of Netanyahu by Elovitch’s outlet, Walla – Filber never crossed over to saying he acted as part of a scheme to influence Walla’s coverage of the prime minister. Further, Filber may not have gotten a benefit from Elovitch for helping Bezeq in real time, but may have been banking on getting a high-paying job with Bezeq after leaving government service, as is often the custom.
2. Claim: Years of articles and hundreds of text messages from Netanyahu messengers Hefetz, Zeev Rubinstein and Sara Netanyahu to Elovitch and between Elovitch and Yeshua to tilt Walla coverage toward the Netanyahu will drown the prime minister in quantity of proof of a bribery scheme. Netanyahu is mentioned by his messengers to often to plead ignorance.
Response: A thousand negative articles about the prime minister on Walla – including specifically during the critical days leading up to elections that accused Netanyahu of ruining relations with the US, mismanaging the economy and other things – will blast a gaping hole in the idea that Walla was especially friendly to him.
In fact, even if the massive campaign by Netanyahu aides to get positive coverage from Walla was partially successful at times, a comprehensive review of all articles reveals negative coverage, which crushes the idea that Netanyahu would feel indebted to help Elovitch for anything. References to Netanyahu by his messengers were bluffs used by them to try to get Walla editors to do what they wanted, but do not serve as proof that the prime minister knew what they were saying on his behalf.
3. Claim: In 2015 and 2016, Netanyahu when asked about conflicts of interest he might have on at least three different points as communications minister, concealed from the State Comptroller; then the attorney-general; and then his own legal adviser, Shlomit Barnea-Fargo, the extensive close relations that he, his wife and his aides had with Elovitch regarding Bezeq and Walla. These relations included working together on a daily basis to influence Walla coverage to help Netanyahu, and went far beyond the standard campaigns of politicians to get positive coverage.
RESPONSE: A specific authoritative government report on what needs to be disclosed in terms of friendship-level connections takes a narrow interpretation of this issue. Under that definition, Netanyahu had no obligation to reveal his ties with Elovitch about media interactions, which politicians have with most media organizations. Again, regardless of any extensive investment by Netanyahu aides, he can deny knowledge of much of their efforts – and where he cannot deny it, the overall coverage was still negative and did not require disclosure.
4. CLAIM: Not a single apolitical bureaucrat approved
the Bezeq-Yes merger without being pressured into doing so against their better judgment by Netanyahu, or by Filber acting on his behalf.
RESPONSE: Key bureaucrats who approved the deal, Dr. Yifat Ben-Chai Segev and Dana Neufeld, have publicly said that they were not pressured.
5. CLAIM: The February 2017 indictment of Ashkelon mayor Itamar Shimoni for media bribery prevents Netanyahu from claiming that he is being singled out for a new kind of bribery charge that does not exist.
RESPONSE: The Shimoni case is far more extreme because there is a claim of a direct payment by Shimoni for positive coverage, so it will not impact Netanyahu. In any event, that case has encountered difficulties and still may fall apart – in which case Netanyahu’s would be the only case ever brought for media bribery. •