Caroline Glick, Benjamin Netanyahu--and Israel's survival as a democracy -- with UPDATE

(Last update: October 25, 2019)


Most of Israel's media has been following three long-running criminal investigations (here) against Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Most of this media coverage appears to focus on 4 sets of details: (1) the individual cases against Netanyahu for bribery, corruption and 'breach of trust'; (2) how Natanyahu must be indicted in order to protect Israel's democracy (the media has apparently assumed Netanyahu to be guilty before indictment or trial); (3) how Netanyahu has an absolute obligation to step down from office before being indicted, even though the law doesn't require this; and (4), since Netanyahu has not yet stepped down, he most certainly should do so once he is indicted, even though the law doesn't require that, either.

Otherwise, most media news outlets claim, Israel's democracy will be threatened. Therefore, for our democracy's sake, Netanyahu should step down immediately--if not sooner.

Caroline Glick has just published an essay that raises serious questions not only about the three cases against Netanyahu, but also about "Israel's democracy" (here). If you want to see the 'case' against Netanyahu in an entirely new light--one not yet explored here in Israel--you 'd be wise to read her essay (see below).

Now, late October, 2019, the three criminal cases against Netanyahu have advanced to the stage where Israel's Attorney General (Avichai Mandelblit) is studying the results of a four-day pre-indictment hearing for Netanyahu that ended some two weeks ago. Mandelblit will decide sometime over the next seven weeks if Netanyahu should go to trial--or be exonerated (here).

Some in Israel claim that these three cases against Netanyahu, which have harassed Netanyahu for more than three years, are linked (here). Some argue that these charges are the reason Netanyahu didn't win the April, 2019 national elections. The weight of all the 'corruption' stories simply hung too heavily around his neck. These cases are also the reason, for some, that  Netanyahu couldn't win enough votes in the follow-up September 2019 elections to retain his hold on the PM office. 

Now, Caroline Glick has written a bombshell of an essay about Mandelblit's responsibility to Israel in this case. Her point of view is brand new to Israeli readers. 

Mandelblit has less than eight weeks to decide to indict Netanyahu--or cancel more than three years' worth of police investigations. Glick claims that what's at stake here for Mandelblit is nothing less than Israel's reputation as a Western democracy. She suggests that, if Mandelblit makes the wrong decision (which is to indict Netanyahu), Israel can lose its reputation as a 'Western democracy'. Her title is, "Netanyahu, the media and the fate of Israeli democracy". It's available here.

Her  thesis is simple. Because, she claims, these three cases involve three individuals seeking special treatment in exchange for what we can call some kind of positive news coverage for Netanyahu, Mandelblit has to be careful how he evaluates his facts. Why? Because, Glick argues, Western democracies have already seen such cases; and in each such instance--even when there is evidence of a quid pro quo--a democracy simply doesn't criminalize such news-media/politician discussions. Criminalizing such discussions would have a chilling effect on all journalist-politician relations,she argues; and these media/politician interactions represent a very special kind of relationship that's too precious to a democracy to chill through a criminalizing label.

Read her essay. It's startling. 

Her essay presents two interesting issues. The first issue is, are each of these three cases against Netanyahu really about gifting to Netanyahu positive news coverage in exchange for special treatment? In perhaps two of these cases, such an offer does appear indeed to be 'on the table'--if news reports are accurate. But the question is, did Netanyahu accept the offer? That's not entirely clear. Then, in a third case, the offer itself isn't clear.

In the end, none of this could matter because of a second issue--a remark cited by Glick: one of the prosecutors at the pre-indictment hearing is reported to have claimed that something about this 'danger' of criminalizing any journalist-politician relationship is, 'a capitalist position' (ibid). 

This single comment could be innocent--and therefore unimportant. But it could also be something else: an anti-capitalist, ideological, political bias. Does such a bias belong in a courtroom? Is such a political reference ever relevant in a courtroom?

In Israel, the one answer to such questions is, too often, yes. That is, such language is too often very relevant in Israel's courtrooms. Too often, such language is an ideological bias that prejudices Israel's most important courts--to the Left. 

Such an existing political bias--and such a biased political comment from a presumed-to-be-objective prosecutor--could suggest that these three cases aren't about criminal behavior at all. This bias suggests that these cases could actually be about how social justice warriors inside Israel's Attorney General's office now travel down the road to damning democracy: in the name of 'protecting democracy', perhaps they'll find Netanyahu guilty of a kind of corruption no other Western democracy dares to embrace. These 'warriors' can thereby 'chill' Israel's political climate so as to take 'democracy' out of Israel.

Such a biased political remark during a legal proceeding certainly suggests a social-justice bias--a bias that leans Left, to Socialism. It suggests a bias that rejects the freedom-of-speech sensibilities that Western democracies so cherish. 

Social justice Socialism never seems to look down the road to think about the unintended consequences of its actions. Just look at social justice warriors in the USA calling for police to be disarmed, without thinking about the consequence of such a demand. 

In America, it is this rise of social-justice Socialism that threatens to undercut the rule of law where, for example, it is a Socialistic 'anti-capitalist' bias that threatens to get a sitting President impeached through secret hearings. There have been just three impeachments in US history, and none--until now--has ever used closed-door hearings to plot out an impeachment case against a sitting President. 

More and more, social justice-Socialism law looks like closed, hidden Soviet-style authoritarian law than open, transparent Western law. By definition, social justice Socialism isn't 'capitalistic'. It's anti-capitalist. 

It's also anti-democracy. Is this Netanyahu's problem? Is his  behavior being judged not through the lens of a democracy, but through a Socialist, anti-democracy lens?

If so, he'll go to jail. But if Netanyahu is indeed to be judged through such an anti-democratic lens, upon what law what this change established in Israel? 

Calling a sensitivity to freedom of speech issues involving journalists and politicians simply 'a capitalistic position' is disturbing, to say the least. Israel's stature as a first-rate world democracy could be seriously undercut if Israel's chief law-enforcement officer listens to such talk and ignores the most basic of Western democratic ideas about free speech in order to criminalize what no leading modern democracy has yet dared to criminalize.

Will Mandelblit go down this road? More important, is this the anti-democracy road Israelis want?

If Glick is correct, Israel's democracy could be at stake here. Read her argument. 

What happens to Netanyahu--and to Israel--with these criminal cases may all depend on how Israel's Attorney General's office defines "capitalist". If their definition is anti- capitalist and anti-democracy, Netanyahu doesn't stand a chance. 


UPDATE: a new story in today's (October 25, 2019) timesofisrael (here) suggests that 'senior prosecutors' in Israel's Attorney General's office are reported to be unmoved by anything Netanyahu's lawyers said during the October 2-8, 2019 pre-indictment hearings. They seem intent to keep intact all of the original charges. Such a report is disturbing. It tends to confirm the analysis above.