Corruption and Israeli Democracy

Accusations of corruption and behaviour unbefitting of a person acting in a position of trust as a minister or prime minister of the country have been circulating around Prime Minister Netanyahu for some time.  The stories and accusations are not new.  Things did, however, take a different turn over the past couple of weeks.  The recommendation by the police to the attorney-general that the prime minister should be indicted on charges of corruption, bribery and breach of trust in two of the cases has put a different complexity on this sorry case.  This, added to a new story and set of accusations coming out of the woodwork with a former close associate of the prime minister turning state witness, has served to tighten the squeeze on Netanyahu and those around him.  The accusations made by the new state witness, Shlomo Filber, sound almost inconceivable.  If only a small proportion of the accusations are proven to be true, it would make place Netanyahu in an untenable position regarding his ability to continue to serve as prime minister.

For now, however, that is all that they are.  Accusations.  The stories sound like they could come from a far-flung land where there is no consideration for rule of law or fiduciary responsibility towards those who elected the prime minister into office.  Many of them are corroborated by people who are seemingly unrelated to each other, and are reported to have been repeated in different situations involving different people and issues.  In the way that they have been presented, the stories sound almost like they could be true.  Any objective person with a high level ability to assess fact from fiction could easily be convinced that the accusations are all based on truth.  And yet, we still do not know.   We do not know because the stories have yet to be verified by an objective court of law that was set up for the purpose of evaluating the credibility and truth of such accusations.  All we know is that certain people, not an insignificant number of people, have the incentive to publicly tell stories of bribery, corruption and betrayal about the prime minister and his associates, while others have the incentive to defend them.  That is as much as we know.  Nothing more.  So how can it be that a democracy allows public officials to be charged, vilified and castigated in public like this, when no formal charges have been laid, and when there is no attempt to bring them before a duly constituted court of law?

Don't get me wrong.  I have listened to and read about the accusations of bad behaviour on the part of the prime minister, his wife, members of his family and others in his close circle.  It seems inconceivable to me that such stories could be made up by people, purely for the intention of weakening or unseating the prime minister.  It seems unbelievable that seemingly similar patterns of behaviour could be concocted by so many different people from different spheres of life and with different interests.  It seems to me that, where there is smoke, there is fire.  And I am a great believer in elected officials being held accountable for all their actions, good and bad.  I am also a great believer in the basic democratic tenet that everybody is innocent until proven guilty by a duly established court of law to examine the particular issues.  If the accusations are so convincing, and if the police have recommended on the basis of evidence in their possession that there is a case to answer, why is the case not being answered?

I am not sure of the answer to this question, but I remain convinced of a few other important aspects of our democracy.  I believe that the trial by public opinion is wrong, and wholly undemocratic.  It is my view that all the investigations that are being conducted into the prime minister's behaviour, should have taken place behind closed doors.  Until the moment that the attorney-general is ready to formally lay legal charges to be answered in a court of law, I think that the details of all that we have been bombarded with, should have been kept away from the public eye.  Instead, we have experienced a trial by public kangaroo court, and directed by the press.  All of the protagonists in this sordid affair, including those who have been accused, the accusers, those involved around the edges, the press and the general public seem to have some axe to grind on the issue of the prime minister and his family.  It is difficult to work out who we should believe, as more and more unbelievable stories surface daily.  The country seems to be split almost down the middle between those who support the prime minister and wish to see him stay in office, as opposed to those who wish to see him unseated, jailed and consigned to political purgatory.

In addition to holding our public officials up to the light and expecting them to be fully accountable to the voting public for their actions in office, our democracy should also protect them against unreasonable and frivolous claims that could damage them and our democracy.  Prime Minister Netanyahu has effectively been rendered incapable of carrying out his highly important prime ministerial duties, as he is spending most of his time these days bring questioned, defending his character against the accusations, and trying to influence the public about the nature of these accusations.  Who is running our country and keeping it secure while he is worrying about the next story that accuses him of inappropriate behaviour?  If the attorney-general considers the police investigation to have produced a case for the prime minister to answer in court, Netanyahu should resign his position and answer the accusations against him.  If it turns out that the court does not find the accusations against him worthy of a guilty verdict, he should be able to return to the prime minister's office to resume his duties.

Israeli democracy should not tolerate corruption of public officials under any circumstances.  It should also protect them while in office against any attempts to disturb their ability to carry out their jobs.  The democratic process should determine that, at a certain point, elected officials should be relieved of their duties to allow them to answer properly-constituted charges that have sufficient basis to believe that they have a reasonable possibility of being upheld by a court.  Until that moment, they should be allowed to get on with their job.

In my opinion, democracy goes both ways.  At the moment, we are suffering the worst of all situations that a democracy gives us.  The people of Israel deserve more, and it has come time to examine our system to ensure that democracy for us protects both the state and the individuals, rather than the unsavoury and undesirable position that our country current finds itself in.

Olmert is Found Innocent

The events that took place in the Jerusalem District Court last week were quite extraordinary.  For the first time in the history of the State of Israel, a former prime minister was in the dock to answer charges of corruption alleged to have taken place in a period before he became prime minister.  On this occasion, the court found that fomer Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is innocent of the main corruption charges against him.  Even though this decision sounds to be the end of a story, in many ways it is only the beginning of this story.

The headline that Olmert is innocent conceals the most important aspects of the story.  A sitting prime minister was forced to resign his office, accused of corruption when in a former public office.  Now, more than 3 years later, a court has decided that all he is guilty of is a relatively minor offence of breach of trust.  It is for this that a prime minister was driven from office at a time when the country was fighting wars on a number of fronts, and facing a major economic crisis.  Not only this.  During the intervening 3 year period while the prosecution gathered its evidence, interviewed high profile individuals under subpoena and brought the case to trial, the press found Olmert guilty and publicly castigated him at every opportunity.   In one of the most dramatic U-turns seen in the modern press, it took 2 days after the verdict exonerating Olmert, for the newspapers to publish the results of a new public opinion poll.  This poll shows that Olmert would muster more seats than current Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu in the next year's general election.  This "zig zag" (as such political about-turns are known in Hebrew) seems quite astonishing.  Has Olmert suddenly become the blue-eyed boy of the press after suffering such horrendous treatment at its hannds?

State prosecutors have been forced to explain their actions in bringing this case to trial.  There was more than a sniff of political motivation in evidence at the time that they announced their intention to indict Olmert three years ago.  Now that they have lost the gamble, the country is rightly asking questions about what drove them to make allegations against a prime minister, which could ultimately not be made to stick.  While the prosecution continue to defend their decision to bring this case to trial,  they admit that the verdict will create great difficulty for future corruption charges against high profile figures, in the event that these need to be brought.  Even though our political landscape is far from perfect and seems to be riddled with bad behaviour and questionable judgement, there is perhaps no harm in forcing prosecuting lawyers to think 100 times before bringing about the downfall of public figures.  Although I feel proud that Israeli democracy is strong enough to see even a sitting prime minister indicted, democracy also requires that the consequences of an acquittal be considered.  This is particularly true of high profile public figures.

The judges in the Olmert trial, while finding him not guilty, confirmed that unacceptable practices were taking place in his office.  His bureau chief, Shula Zaken, was found guilty on corruption charges even though her boss was acquitted.  The basis of his acquittal was simply the fact that the prosecution was unable to prove that he knew what was going on, rather than the fact that it did not happen.  This serves to reinforce that practices of public officials in Israel leave a great deal to be desired.  There can be no doubt that the questionable and corruptive practices which were proven to have taken place in Olmert's office when he was the Mayor of Jerusalem, are practices that are established in public life and occur in numerous public offices up and down the country.  The message that such behaviour is unacceptable and needs to be stamped out was unfortunately completely drowned out by the headlines of Olmert's acquittal.

Although Olmert has escaped from this sorry saga, he still faces corruption charges in the so-called "Holyland Affair" in a Tel Aviv court.  Prosecution officials have already begun to re-examine the file of charges against him in this case, for fear that the charges could go the same way as the previous case.  They are well aware of the enormous damage that they would suffer if they lose this case as well.

Olmert seems happy to escape the public glare for now, and slip into the background.  There is no doubt, however, that this will not be allowed to continue for long - this is a man who has spent so many years in the public arena, that it seems unlikely that he will quietly fade away.  Olmert has said he has no interest in returning to politics, but it is difficult to take these words at face value for now.  The acquittal could not have come at a better time for the Kadima party.  The party runs the risk of disbanding at the next election due to its poor showings.  The prospect of Olmert returning to politics and heading up the party has created a great deal of interest, and even some expectation.  There are those who see Olmert beating Bibi to become prime minister at the head of a Kadima government.  The most recent opinion polls seem to support this. I find it difficult to see this euphoria lasting until the next election, and I still predict that Netanyahu will keep the hot seat.  I do think that Kadima could be saved if Olmert returns to head up the party.  If not, I believe it will be consigned to the dustbin filled with failed political parties

Who Do They Represent?

It is very seldom that I watch BBC World News these days. At one time, I used to watch it a great deal. That was until the Lebanon War in the summer of 2006 when I realised once and for all that the BBC's reporting was unacceptably biased against Israel. So it was unusual for me to change to the BBC World News channel the other day. In a way, I am sorry that I did because my eyes were shocked at the sight that greeted me.

The story that happened to be on the news at that moment was the one involving the arrest of 44 people in New Jersey on wide-sweeping corruption and money laundering charges. The pictures that I was watching showed people being escorted from a building to a police bus that had been brought to transport the suspects. What caught my attention in particular was the fact that more than a few of the people being arrested wore the unmistakable "uniform" of Haredi orthodox Jews. This picture is the one that is stuck in my mind, and I am sure in the minds of many others like me.

The wearing of a uniform or a particular style of dress is usually done for positive reasons to identify the individual with a certain group. In most cases, it is done according to rules that are laid down by virtue of a job or a position held. The examples that come to mind include policemen or women, airline attendants, schoolchildren, scouts, fire fighters, hospital workers etc. In some cases, the uniform is chosen by those wearing it for their own reasons. Examples include the Amish community and the Haredi sects of orthodox Jews. What is clear is that the wearer of the uniform is immediately identified with the group to whom the uniform belongs in both good and bad situations. This means that the uniform-wearer has a responsibility to himself as well as to others in the group. If he behaves in a negative way, he risks bringing discredit to all members of the group, and not only to himself.

In the case of the Haredi sects who choose to wear black trousers and jackets, white shirts and skullcaps (kippot) and long side locks, they are associated not only as Haredi orthodox Jews, but as Jews. This reflects, both positively and negatively, on all Jews and not only on Haredi Jews. More than this, because these groups hold themselves as more religiously observant and close followers of all religious laws, there is a natural expectation that their behaviour will be exemplary in their pursuit of religious adherence. As such, pictures of these people being arrested are even more shocking. Clearly these facts had escaped our New Jersey Rabbis who are currently in police custody.

When the local government officials and politicians were escorted to the police bus, it was difficult to identify them as such. They looked like any person and could have been a cleaner, electrician or plumber as well as a government official. But when the uniformed orthodox Jews were led to the bus, no commentary was required to state who they were and which group they were part of. The pictures spoke for themselves.

When wearing clothing that identifies your links to a group of any sort, the wearer has the responsibility of the entire group upon him. Not only should he behave well, he should be seen to behave well at all times. I cannot help thinking about the recent demonstrations in Jerusalem which have pitted Haredi Jews against the police, with some of the Haredis throwing stones and other objects at police. Even if their cause is good and they are justified in their protest, the sight of these people throwing stones at the police does Haredis and all Jews a great deal of damage.

The same is true of the New Jersey Rabbis. Whether or not they are found guilty on charges as serious as dealing in human organs, the damage to Jews across the world has been done. In the current climate where Jews are under more significant scrutiny and certain non-Jews are seeking any reason to speak out and act out against Jews, this sort of behaviour does no credit to the Jewish community. It promotes anti-Semitism and this is something that we can ill afford at this time.

The truth is, that despite our common ancestral bonds, I don't feel that they represent me in any way.

A Series of Unbelievable Events

The strange story surrounds a medical patch called Life Keeper which has reputedly been developed by an Israeli company, SafeSky Software. Life Keeper shot into the news last week when it was announced that SafeSky had sold 37% of Life Keeper to British-Taiwanese company, Micro-Star International for $370m. This values Life Keeper at a cool billion dollars. But what is Life Keeper, and why should it be worth so much money?

The interest in Life Keeper stems from the fact that it claims to warn the patch wearer of a pending heart attack 30 minutes before it actually happens. The company makes the following statement about Life Keeper on its website:
"With this new device, we are able to save the lives of perhaps millions, or more importantly than that, the life of someone you care so dearly about, as to value his or her life far above that of your own. In principle, the system works very simply. The Life Keeper device monitors the flow of your pulse and records a critical or sudden change that is above the permissible levels. The device then sends this data to a medical centre to alert for help. It is widely know that in case of medical intervention within 10-15 minutes after the primary symptoms of a heart attack, there is a chance of saving a patient. Your Life is in Your Hands."

This is the good part of what sounds like an interesting product. There are, however, some problems with the story. Company management are reported to claim that a patent has been registered in connection with Life Keeper, and that it has approval of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). No mention is made of the patent or the FDA approval on the company's website, and there is no mention of the approval on the FDA site nor any evidence of a patent having been registered. Further investigation by Israel's Globes newspaper revealed that the Taiwanese company did not report the deal at all, and its London subsidiary denied any knowledge of it. Company management continued to insist that the deal was alive and well despite the vigorous denials by Micro-Star. Globes also reported that no Israeli venture capital company had heard of Life Keeper, nor had any of Israel's leading doctors in the field that Globes approached on the subject. This is especially strange in Israel, which is known for having an environment where everybody knows everybody.

The company's website lists 4 persons as company officers in its Israel headquarters. These are Dr. Amos Bouchnick, Dr. Gavriel Picker, Mr. Arik Klein and Mr. Hagai Hadas. Bouchnik and Klein are reported to be the founders and equal shareholders in Life Keeper. Bouchnik is a dentist who, besides owning a chain of dental clinics, also has a shareholdings in a biotechnology firm as well as a media and marketing company. Klein, it is claimed, is behind the patent and the product's algorithms. Klein is reported to have previously served jail time for fraud. It was further reported that the Israeli Money Laundering Authority is investigating an attempt by Bouchnik and Klein to open a bank account for the purpose of receiving "large sums of money from African countries".

What is far more interesting for me, however, is the involvement in this story of Hadas and Picker. Picker is also a dentist who is reported to be a close friend of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu since first grade. It is claimed that he has treated Netanyahu in the past. Picker, who is listed as the CEO of Safe Keeper, tendered his resignation from the post suddenly on Thursday in a statement via his lawyer. The lawyer claims that the resignation comes after Picker was denied from gaining access to the memorandum of understanding covering the supposed sale to Micro-Star.

Hadas's involvement is of even more interest. He is a former senior member of the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad. He was recently appointed by Prime Minister Netanyahu to be the special representative to negotiate for the return of captured Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit. It is widely understood that Hadas had hoped that this appointment may be a step towards returning to the Mossad as its head.

This sorry affair could be counted as just another strange story if it were not for the close links of some of the people to PM Netanyahu. In particular, Hadas has a very important and sensitive job to carry out and the Israeli public require that this job be undertaken only by somebody who can be "loved and trusted" to make the right decisions. His involvement in this sordid story calls Hadas's appointment into question. It also casts further doubts on the decisions being taken by the prime minister.

I am aware of the fact that many people, both in and out of Israel, view the Israeli business environment as one that is riddled with dishonesty and corruption. For those people, this story may not come as any surprise. As somebody who has been involved in this business community for the past 10 years and seen some less than acceptable practices, I find the whole episode shocking. This is not only because of the series of seemingly dishonest activities that took place, but also because of how close it comes to the highest echelons of Israeli politics. It seems as though we have yet to hear the end of this story. Watch this space for more.