Got that pioneering spirit? You’re invited to help build Israel’s periphery by planting roots in southern soil with Nefesh B’Nefesh.
The hegemony over the Hebrew press in Israel by the far Left has always been a threat to Israeli democracy. The Left utilizes its near-monopoly over the press to promote its extremist and defeatist agenda in a naked manner. The Oslo debacle would never have occurred without Israel’s far Left exercising near-totalitarian control over the Hebrew press and electronic media.
But now there is a clear and present danger that Israel’s leftist-controlled Hebrew press may simply “steal” the election away from Ariel Sharon and grant it to Amram Mitzna.
It was, of course, expected that the press would conscript itself as partisan promoters of Mitzna in this election. But the current jihad against Sharon, coming just weeks before the election, is more than anyone thought possible.
Israel’s Hebrew press has simply declared war on Sharon. It is doing so in the form of endless daily front-page giant headlines about Sharon’s supposed involvement in “corruption.” The media campaign is well organized and rather transparent. The great irony is that Sharon, while not exactly bereft of sleaze, is far less corrupt than Amram Mitzna and the Israeli Labor Party.
The background to all this and to the press’s totalitarian jihad on behalf of Amram Mitzna goes back to 1999. At that time, Sharon was fighting a Likud internal primaries campaign challenging Netanyahu — a campaign, by the way, that he lost.
Sharon financed that campaign the same way all Israeli politicians do, with contributions from donors abroad or from Israelis funneled through overseas dummy corporations. Sharon’s doing so was not exactly clean, but it was peanuts compared with the illegal campaign financing schemes of Ehud Barak, Amram Mitzna, and other Labor Party leaders. (Netanyau’s finances were hardly cleaner either.)
Overseas money routinely corrupts Israeli politics. It is what props up the Far Left and even the Arab fascist political parties running in the Knesset, but it also routinely flows into the coffers of the Labor Party and the Likud.
Not only were Sharon’s 1999 primary campaign finances not exceptional in having benefited from some money from overseas, but they were downright honorable compared with the conventional campaign practices in Israel.
This was the case for several reasons: First, the money was being used for a primaries campaign, where Israel’s campaign finance laws are looser than for a real election. Second, no one claims the money was coming from anyone with special interests or expecting some sort of quid pro quo from Sharon, unlike — notoriously unlike — the Mitzna campaign sleaze.
In any event, two years after Sharon had lost those primaries and Ehud Barak came close to ceding Jerusalem and irreparably harming the rest of Israel as prime minister, the state comptroller issued a report on campaign finance corruption.
Much of the report focused on Ehud Barak and the Labor Party, particularly the unprecedented sleaze and corruption in Barak’s campaign, but it also managed to mention Sharon’s questionable finances in those Likud primaries. The comptroller ordered Sharon to repay 4.7 million shekels in campaign contributions that had been received in 1999 through an overseas dummy corporation.
Sharon’s problem was that he had lost those primaries and so could hardly cover the costs of the reimbursement through raiding the Treasury coffers — which someone in his position might have done. So, to come up with the cash and to obey the comptroller, Sharon tried to mortgage his ranch, worth quite a lot.
(It is not clear exactly where Sharon got the money for the ranch, but the very fact that the press has not tried to make a lurid issue out of that shows that it was probably all legitimate.)
The problem was that because of Israel’s bizarre socialist land nationalization system, the ranch is on land “leased” from the Israel Lands Authority. Even though the ranch is worth oodles, technically Sharon could not borrow against it to get the cash.
Instead, he approached his old chum Cyril Kern. Kern is a native Londoner who had served with Sharon as a volunteer in the Hagana in the Israeli War of Independence, stayed on close terms with Sharon, and owns a moderate empire of textile factories in South Africa. Sharon asked his two sons to take care of the paperwork, and Kern loaned the Sharons $1.5 million to pay the reimbursement ordered by the comptroller. Later, the Sharons took out an ordinary loan in Israel from a bank, all above board, and used it to pay back Kern.
So in essence the whole hullabaloo in the Israeli press has to do with the fact that the Sharons took out a bridge loan from an old chum of Ariel Sharon in order to comply with the state comptroller’s order. Kern has no business interests in Israel and so was clearly not being nice to gain favors or patronage from Sharon — of the sort that Amram Mitzna has rained down on Gad Zeevi and the other business cronies of his.
And all of this over a mere $1.5 million, a loan that was repaid in full. Compare this to the many millions of dollars created for Mitzna’s contractor cronies while Mitzna was mayor of Haifa. Compare this with Mitzna’s stonewalling and refusal to disclose who made contributions to his “Katom” election fund, or Mitzna’s refusal to disclose which contractors are funding him now and which favors they were promised in exchange.
The press is making a big deal out of the fact that, when questioned about the Kern loan, Sharon had stated that he had mortgaged his ranch to raise the money to repay the campaign contributions. He did not technically record any lien against the ranch in the land registry for Kern. If he had, then it would have been an ordinary mortgage, with no bending of the truth.
I suppose Sharon might have indicated informally to Kern, as a gentleman’s agreement, that Kern could regard the Sharon ranch as his collateral, and no doubt Kern would have responded along the lines of tut tut, pshaw pshaw.
And as a matter of fact, such an informal agreement, if not denied by either party, is valid and is a lien and so can be considered a “mortgage.” The leftist press regards all this as Third World corruption, as high crimes and misdemeanors without precedent.
Was Sharon Ivory Clean in all this? Of course not. Is he tainted with at least some bit of sleaze? Of course he is. The Likud is a mildly corrupt and totally incompetent political party. But Israeli elections are invariably about choosing between incompetence and survival.
Other than a single scoop (in Maariv earlier this month) on Mitzna’s ties with Gad Zeevi, the press has been thunderously silent about sleaze in the Mitzna campaign and about Mitzna’s highly questionable dealings as mayor of Haifa. It is as if a code of Mafia-style omerta has settled around Mitzna like a protective Honor Cloud, erected by the totalitarian Israeli Hebrew press. The scandal about Peres’s Labor Party comrade Yossi Ginnosar’s money laundering for the PLO? Not even in small print on the back page!
The real scandal in all this? The real corruption? It is the totalitarian hegemony and misuse of the Israeli Hebrew press for partisan purposes.
About the Author: Steven Plaut is a professor at the University of Haifa. He can be contacted at email@example.com.
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Comments are closed.
No tweets found.
My parents arrived as Austrian Jewish refugees in Switzerland almost exactly sixty years ago.
Israel is a country that understands security concerns. Many civil rights have been sacrificed in the name of security and Israelis are used to being checked every time they enter a shopping center, a large store or any public building. Americans recently learned that they, too, are subject to many checks on their most private activities.
Without a vision, strategy is impossible. Tactics become farcical.
No one can envy President Obama’s current dilemma over Syria.
His decision to begin arming the Syrian rebels challenging Bashar Assad’s regime drew charges that the rebel forces are driven by jihad movements, particularly al Qaeda. Further, many rebel spokesmen have regularly denounced Israel and suggested that once in power they will end Mr. Assad’s policy of not rocking the boat with Israel. How, then, critics ask, could the president align the U.S. with the rebels?
In a gushing report on the election of Hassan Rohani as Iran’s new president, The New York Times began with this: “In a striking repudiation of the ultraconservatives who wield power in Iran, voters…overwhelmingly elected a mild-mannered cleric who advocates greater personal freedoms and a more conciliatory approach to the world.”
Last month in this space we noted that the New York State Assembly was considering legislation that would prohibit domestic insurers from including on their financial statements investments in companies that engage in investment activities in Iran. These financial statements are relied upon by the state to determine whether the company is solvent and able to pay claims. That bill has since passed the Assembly, but the New York State Senate is balking at passing it as well.
There is no other candidate running for mayor who supports our community’s values as Salgado does.
If the eyes are the window to the soul, then children’s eyes are the window to the Almighty Himself.
Adding Turkey to the list of volatile states would mean even more uncertainty for Israel.
Is there no one who remembers this recent history?
Making Rouhani the president was a brilliant strategic move for Khamene’i.
Noone, least of all me, wants to see any Arab child suffer, God forbid.
The Sanctuary was built with an ezrat nashim, a separate area for women.
I favor eliminating the exemption of yeshiva students from military service and, without quibbling about details, I endorse the initiatives designed to end that disgraceful exemption.
American news headlines over the past few weeks have focused on political targeting by the Internal Revenue Service of conservative groups. But Israel is experiencing its own form of political targeting by the state. The attorney general is leading an initiative to have a small group of radical juveniles who engage in mischief declared a terrorist organization.
April 16, 2013
Dear Mr. President,
My heartfelt sympathies to you and the American people for the acts of protest carried out in Boston this week during the Boston Marathon. This really is a wake-up call for us all.
The Israeli left, along with most of the world’s pseudo-intellectual classes, has suddenly discovered Abraham Lincoln, thanks to Steven Spielberg’s much-praised movie.
Honest Abe used exactly the same blockade tactic against the Confederacy over which the Israeli Left is now sobbing its eyes out.
Quick. Name all the Israeli parties that did not run in the recent election on a platform focusing on lowering the price of housing and the cost of living. After that, name all the Israeli parties who understand what has produced the rapid increase in housing prices and have a plan for coping with them and lowering them.
There is a widespread misconception that the Middle East conflict is complicated. In fact, it is really rather simple.
Indeed, one can basically summarize and explain the entire conflict in the context of the words “occupation” or “occupied territories” and people’s beliefs about the effects of such “occupation.”
In 1999, Benjamin Netanyahu, in his first go-round as prime minister, lost his reelection bid to Ehud Barak, much to the delight of Israel’s conscripted media and of many in its judicial system.
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/the-hebrew-presss-jihad-against-sharon/2003/02/14/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online: