Soccer Dad: Shechting the sacred cows of the israeli left

November 25, 2005

Shechting the sacred cows of the israeli left

Headline in Haaretz, "Poll: Hanegbi most corrupt minister; PM makes top five":

Following Hanegbi in the rankings of the public's perception of the most corrupt ministers were Agriculture Minister Yisrael Katz, Education Minister Limor Livnat, Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and the prime minister. All are members of the Likud, save Sharon, who quit the party this week to form a new faction.

Second to Omri Sharon in the Knesset rankings was Shas MK Shlomo Benizri, followed by Benjamin Netanyahu (Likud) and Roni Bar-On of the new Sharon faction.

Respondents polled cited outgoing Labor Housing Minister Yitzhak Herzog as the least corrupt minister, with Tzipi Livni of the Sharon faction, Shimon Peres of Labor, Likud Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and Likud Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom rounding out the group.

The legislators viewed as least corrupt were Shinui leader Yosef Lapid, Avigdor Lieberman (National Union), Avraham Poraz (Shinui), and newly elected Labor Chairman Amir Peretz.

Mind you, these are perceptions. Perceptions that Ha'aretz no doubt would like to re-inforce. (Except maybe the perceptions about PM Sharon and Avigdor Lieberman.)

However, a Jerusalem Post editorial "Unpopularity Contest" takes issue with these perceptions:

It boggles the mind that, if this poll is to be believed, the general public could confer the "most honest minister" title on no other than Labor's Housing Minister Isaac Herzog, chief strategist in the prime ministerial campaign by Ehud Barak in 1999. The next year's state comptroller's report exposed an unprecedented network of bogus charit i es set up to funnel illicit sums to that campaign, and imposed a record fine (NIS 13.8 million) on Labor for the scam.
...
Surprisingly, however, these front-runners are curiously followed by Binyamin Netanyahu and Roni Bar-On, neither of whom were ever indi cted for anything.

Both, however, were much-maligned in affairs that are in retrospect widely perceived as having verged on harassment, including televised and extraordinarily hyped dawn raids on Netanyahu's apartment and tendentious leaks from both poli ce a nd prosecution. Most memorable is the commotion surrounding the tin pin, valued at 50 agorot, that Sara Netanyahu received during a tour of the diamond exchange.

The editorial knows where to place some of the blame too:

Proving that slung-mud sticks, the poll's results were interminably rehashed on the air wav es yesterday. They weren't treated as perhaps betokening flawed perception but, rather, almost as proof of guilt or of laudable civic hygiene.

This inevitably raises questions of how such arbitrary impressions became fixed in people's minds. Here the fin ge r must incontrovertibly point at the media.

Those whom it chooses to pillory, even unjustifiably so, evidently become guilty-by-insinuation.

Those on whose allegedly or demonstrably improper conduct it chooses not to dwell heavily, by contrast, emerge squeaky clean, purified by omission.

The media do play a role here. Ha'aretz in particular. Wedded to the idea that Michael Ben Yair was an example of a noble civil servant, Ha'aretz treated his investigations as proof of guilt. Though his notable targets: Ya'akov Ne'eman, Rafael Eitan, Ehud Olmert and Binyamin Netanyahu - emerged from his prosecutions unharmed legally, there was this perception purveyed that he was seeking out corruption.

More likely, in a position of power, the fiercely partisan Ben Yair did all he could to reverse the results of 1996 election.

But the Post doesn't mention something that's worth remembering. In the Bar-On scandal, Roni Bar-On was never questioned under warning. Given that the charges was that Bar-On was to be appointed to succeed Ben-Yair so that he would go easy on Aryeh Deri, if there was such a quid pro quo Bar-On should have known about it. If he wasn't questioned under warning one may assume that even the prosecutors didn't feel he was involved!

If the impression of corruption is a result of an out of control prosecutor, what does it say about a legal establishment that countenances such overreaching? Not much. And David Hazony takes aim at the most influential member of that establishment in "Aharon Barak's true colors". Objecting to Chief Justice Barak's opposition to the appointment of Prof Ruth Gavison to the High Court of Justice:

On November 13, after keeping a dignified silence on the matter, Barak finally went public with his views - and the results were not pretty. In comments published the next day, he offered his reasons for opposing Gavison's appointment:

"She is a candidate who comes to the court with an agenda - and that in and of itself is a bad thing. That's not our way... Her agenda is bad for the Supreme Court. She is definitely qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, but that's not the question�. If Ruth hadn't publicized her views about the Supreme Court's role in a democratic society, I wouldn't have asked her what she thought about it," adding that in such a case he would not have opposed her appointment.

Barak's defense boils down to three central arguments: (i) He opposes a candidate who enters the court with a preexisting "agenda" with regard to the court's role, regardless of its contents; (ii) he opposes Gavison's particular agenda, feeling that it is "bad for the Supreme Court," despite conceding her qualifications to serve on it; and (iii) he opposes her only because she made her views public.

By making these arguments Bark showed that he clearly afraid of a challenge to the unaccountable supremacy he has imbued Israel's legal establishment with. Immune to voters and answerable only to themselves, the legal establishment doesn't want dissent. Even from an eminently qualified legal scholar. That just won't do.

Amir Peretz was listed as one of the least corrupt politicians. No doubt he benefitted (in the media) by repeatedly taking on then FM Netanyahu. But Evelyn Gordon argues that, despite his reputation for sticking up for the little guy, has actually hurt the little guys, questioning if he's really the "Champion of the Poor?".:

As chairman of the Histadrut labor federation, for instance, Peretz, far from fighting for the p oor, has consistently fought to obtain further perks for some of the country's best-paid workers - at the expense of the truly needy. A case in point was the agreement signed last week by the state, Bank Leumi and the Leumi workers' union, under which the government will offer Leumi workers stock options in the bank at a steep discount. The union obtained this perk, which will cost the state some NIS 350 million, by implementing a series of strikes and sanctions that threatened to torpedo Leumi's privatiz ation and vowing to continue until their demand for protection money was met.

Bank workers are hardly impoverished: According to Central Bureau of Statistics data, the average bank worker earned about NIS 13,600 a month this year. That is almost double t he average wage in the economy (currently some NIS 7,300 a month) and more than four times the minimum wage (about NIS 3,300). And while some bank workers obviously earn much less than this average, they will not be the main beneficiaries of the payoff: The options, as well as a NIS 120m. bonus that was included in the deal (but which will be funded by the bank rather than the state), will be divvied up according to the workers' salaries. In other words, those with the highest salaries will get the most; those with the lowest salaries will get the least.

And it was Peretz, in his capacity as Histadrut chairman, who personally approved this successful extortion attempt: Not only did the strikes and sanctions require Histadrut authorization, but Histadrut officials participated in the negotiations. In other words, Peretz personally oversaw a campaign that culminated in NIS 350m. worth of state funds being funneled to some of the economy's best-paid workers. And as a result, this money will not be available to help the truly needy.

I would not expect Ha'aretz to question the effectiveness of Peretz's efforts. What's important for Ha'aretz is to make sure that the right guy gets good press. There is a lot of legal corruption going on in Israel, and there's a pliant press all too willing to turn the other cheek and allow it to continue.

Technorati Tags: Israel.