Negative Democracy Israel today

Shlomo Pilber's testimony on Monday was an opportunity to pause for a moment and reflect on the plight of democracy.

From his testimony, it was possible to understand the magnitude of the threat to Israeli society and freedom of expression.

Benjamin Netanyahu and two media tycoons (Noni Mozes and Shaul Alovich) are on trial in the Alps cases.

The offenses attributed to them relate to their desire to voice or consider the possibility of voicing positions that are not acceptable in the dominant line of the Israeli media.

Pilber explained Netanyahu's perception and said: "The media was leaning to the left. The reason Netanyahu took the Ministry of Communications was to diversify the opinion market so that right-wing voters would have a media that would express their positions. To enter the Israeli media market is to burn money. "For this market, he talked to him about ideology. Netanyahu's desire to solve the distortion in the media market burned in him more ideologically than the management of the state. He believed that the left-wing bias of the media prevented the right from really ruling."

Pilber's remarks complement previous evidence that has already been given at trial.

Together and separately, each committee dismantled the prosecution's thesis that Netanyahu received bribes in the form of fan coverage or even just an unusual response from the Walla website owned by Elovich, and in return gave regulatory benefits to Bezeq, which was owned by Elovich.

Netanyahu received hostile coverage from Walla and was not involved in Bezeq's regulatory proceedings.

But that leaves us with the definition of bribery as something to do with media coverage of a politician - and of a very particular politician named Benjamin Netanyahu.

The most dangerous combination

For the past 30 years, there has been no more popular politician than Netanyahu.

But no politician in the history of the country has suffered from such deep demonization in the media as he has.

The cases against him actually state that it is illegal - a serious offense - to give him fan coverage.

Any publisher who even considers doing so, his life will be turned upside down on him.

In other words, the indictments against Netanyahu are an attempt to dismantle both democracy and the idea of ​​free media in Israel.

On Monday, we were exposed to the depth of the attack when Netanyahu's defense attorney, Amit Hadad, revealed transcripts of conversations that Pilber had with reporters Amit Segal and Raviv Drucker.

The calls were intercepted by the spyware that the police installed on Pilber's phone as part of Netanyahu's investigations.

The amazing thing about conversations is their routine.

Two reporters talked about current affairs with a public figure in private background conversations.

In a conversation with Segal, Pilber claimed that Netanyahu's investigations would greatly complicate the prosecution because Netanyahu did not commit any offense.

He explained to Drucker that as director general of the Ministry of Communications, he had no authority to interfere in the regulatory procedures of the Bezeq Yes merger.

These conversations were supposed to shake the foreheads of the barriers because they show that the police see something criminal in the conversations of a public figure with reporters about current affairs.

This view is appropriate for a totalitarian state and not for democracy.

But instead of bringing to the masses of reporters and editors outside Lahav 433 or the State Attorney's Office, the disclosure of the transcripts provoked at most yawns in the media systems in Israel.

Most systems welcome the practical application of a worldview that sees a criminal element in the media that seeks balance or in Netanyahu's conduct for changes in the media market, because he is the enemy of the establishment and admired by large sections of the people.

The indifference of the media proves that Netanyahu is right.

The greatest flaw and threat to Israeli democracy is the combination of the media with the ruling class - the unelected, permanent establishment, which is not accountable to the public.

Even the public is fed up

Israel is not alone in the crisis of the democratic regime, as manifested, among other things, in the connection between the media and the governmental establishment.

America - the largest and most powerful democracy - is falling apart before our eyes.

And as here, we see this in the hostile attitude of the establishment - including the establishment media - towards its political enemies, as opposed to the forgiving and sympathetic attitude towards the loved ones of the establishment.

Loved ones of the establishment, such as Advocate Michael Sussman who represented the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton, are allowed to give false testimony to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (a felony) and not bear punishment, not pay any price, and even get hired. Michael Flynn, who is charged with the same offenses, is ruining his life.Susman is a media darling, Flynn lost his money, home and public status.He almost went to jail and suffered "traitorous" calls from brainwashed people exposed to lies in the media.Citizens can not fire investigators or overturn laws. Citizens have one way to express their vote - to vote at the ballot box, and it actually works.

In San Francisco this week the city's prosecutor was ousted in a referendum.

The prosecutor, Chesa Bodin, is the son of two terrorists who were involved in a terrorist attack in which two policemen and a bank guard were killed 50 years ago, and he inherited from his parents his radical views.

Bodin was elected by a narrow majority in 2019 in the most radical city in the US. From day one he worked to dismantle the city's law and order system to advance the progressive revolution that sees the policeman the enemy, and the criminal the hero. Immediately.The level of crime of any kind in the city has risen by tens, and in some cases by hundreds of percent within months.

The situation in San Francisco today is so dire that about 40 percent of the city's residents want to leave.

In this situation, even those with extreme leftist views are fed up.

So they go to the polls and oust Bodin by a large majority.

If it depended on the media and had a decisive position, Bodin would have remained in office, and 60 percent of San Francisco residents would have walked around with the Cain sign of racism on their foreheads.

Last week, Prime Minister Bennett sent a letter to the "silent majority" he claims to support. Bennett called on this majority to make his voice heard. Supporters of the party - that is far less than four seats. But on the other hand, Bennett receives more sympathetic media than David Ben-Gurion does.

The irony, as well as the threat, is that unlike Bennett's call, the way the majority (and minority) make their voices heard is not in demonstrations as he sought - but in the polls - something Bennett has been blocking in his body for a year, supported by the media.

But the main thing - bribery, fraud, breach of trust. 

Were we wrong?

Fixed!

If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us