Israeli journalism critiques itself over PM graft affair

The numerous investigations into Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s alleged instances of political misconduct and cases of suspected corruption still dominate the headlines of the Hebrew-language paper’s weekend editions.

Yedioth Ahronoth, whose own publisher Arnon Mozes is being investigated for an alleged quid pro quo deal he attempted to seal with the prime minister, focuses on the gifts Netanyahu received from Israeli movie producer Arnon Milchan and other businessmen, including hundreds of thousands of shekels worth of cigars and pricey bottles of champagne for his wife, Sara. According to Yedioth, Milchan gave up to NIS 400,000 worth of goods to the Netanyahus, though Sara testified to police on Wednesday that the perks were just gifts exchanged between friends and nothing more, adding that she and her husband had given Milchan’s wife a necklace as well.

While it is difficult not to suspect that the newspaper is stressing the Milchan case in order to divert attention from Case 2000, which explores claims that the prime minister promised Mozes to advance legislation to hobble the competing Israel Hayom if Yedioth gave him more favorable coverage, it should nevertheless be noted that the daily’s front page mentions that its publisher is set to be questioned later next week, even if coverage of the matter is unsurprisingly brief. Journalists from Yisrael Hayom and Yedioth Ahronoth as well as several MKs involved in the drafting of an abandoned law targeting Israel Hayom, will be questioned in the coming days too.

To many Israeli journalists, Case 2000 raises serious questions about freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the Jewish state, as well as deeply troubling concerns over what interests and which powerful players are really driving the media’s agenda. Yedioth’s leading writers, including some who have been rumored to have been the subject of negotiations between Mozes and Netanyahu, deal with the allegations against their paper’s publisher, and, to their credit, contemplate what they can and should do in the face of these suspicions in order to preserve their journalistic honor.

Sima Kadmon acknowledges that while detailing the recordings from the Netanyahu-Mozes negotiations is incredibly embarrassing to her paper, such a move is nevertheless not only warranted, but absolutely necessary in order to purge Yedioth’s stains. Ben Dror-Yemini, on the other hand, deviates from his typical investigative manner and advises his peers to wait before making any judgments regarding Case 2000. Reporter Amihai Itieli chooses not to tackle the allegations head on, and instead passionately attempts to disprove one claim by Meretz head Zehava Galon, who charged that lobbyists associated with Yedioth approached her in the past and threatened to “erase her name” from the paper if she did not help advance legislation against Israel Hayom. While Galon claimed Yedioth realized its threat after she did not comply with the lobbyists’ demands, Itieli counts that her name has in fact been mentioned in the paper 220 times since the 2013 elections.

Haaretz’s leading contributors address Case 2000 like a lioness pouncing on prey, criticizing Yedioth, its publisher, and Netanyahu himself at every turn. Yisrael Harel says Netanyahu should have already vacated his seat following the surfacing of the recordings of his meetings with Mozes, and adds that the PM’s Likud party colleagues’ dismissal of the investigation as a small and insignificant matter is what is truly disturbing about the case. Guy Rolnik, the deputy publisher of Haaretz, charges that Case 2000 has exposed the ugly face of his own paper’s competitors, and writes that he finds it very difficult to believe the basis for the meeting between Netanyahu and Mozes was for ideological reasons rather than just a dirty power struggle for control over the Israeli public opinion. Yossi Verter bets that even Netanyahu himself cannot emerge from this investigation politically unharmed, and says the case will probably at the least lead to the prime minister’s resignation. Nevertheless, Verter laments, simple Israeli citizens will be the ones to suffer from the expected political turmoil.

Finally, on Israel Hayom’s front page, Netanyahu’s investigations are only mentioned in passing, while the bulk of the coverage is dedicated to Sunday’s Mideast peace summit in Paris, in what is expected to be a final chance for the Obama administration to lay out its positions for the region. Israel Hayom does not even attempt to mask its contempt for the representatives of dozens of countries which are expected to reiterate their opposition to Israeli settlements and call for the establishment of a Palestinian state, after a UN Security Council resolution last month did the same.

“The Paris summit, a [children’s] decoration board,” reads the daily’s dismissive headline, over a piece by Boaz Bismuth. “The French foreign minister, just like his American counterpart, does not understand that you achieve peace through direct negotiations,” Bismuth charges. French diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the media about the event, said the timing of the conference — days before President-elect Donald Trump’s inauguration — is intentional and meant to present him with a collective international push for peace once he takes office. “The world, in practice, is freezing the current situation in order to present Trump with a fait accompli,” Bismuth concludes bitterly.