Yedioth backs the corrupt
Yedioth Ahronoth journalist Nahum Barnea, an Israel Prize laureate who was given the award by former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, said once that his newspaper admired the man who was sentenced on Tuesday to six years in prison. (Olmert has already said he plans to appeal.) And indeed, when a former prime minister was indicted for the first time in Israel's history, the event was given special treatment in Yedioth: a single-column item at the bottom of one of the paper's back pages.
On Tuesday, Barnea lost it in the pages of Yedioth and starting firing in all directions. He wrote that Olmert was seen as "Satan" and a "dybbuk" (a folk demon) and that "Olmert's enemies organized a party to celebrate the bloodshed." Who were those enemies and when and where did the party take place? Unfortunately, Barnea didn't share that information with the readers. He also didn't specify where he witnessed the expressions of joy at Olmert's downfall.
Barnea talks about the "humiliating investigations" Olmert underwent. Humiliating? Excuse me -- do we live in the same country? Olmert did not present himself at the police station -- the investigators came to his office, and he was the one who told them when and how much time he had for them.
Just to compare, there was once a former prime minister who was summoned for questioning. He didn't call the investigators to him; he went to the police station in Bat Yam, at the appointed time, waited on a bench for an hour until they were ready for him, and then was questioned like anyone else. The subject of that investigation, by the way, was suspected bribery. That former prime minister was suspected of taking a bribe of 4 shekels (just over $1). The matter involved a brooch his wife had received at a meeting of diamond dealers' wives. That prime minister's name was Benjamin Netanyahu.
"Olmert is a convicted criminal," Barnea wrote. "But he isn't Satan." This is a nifty technique. No one has said that Olmert is Satan. They said he is corrupt. But Barnea has a problem facing the Tel Aviv District Court's decision that Olmert is corrupt. So he made up a baseless claim, as if someone had accused Olmert of being the devil, and whine about why they're doing it.
"I suggest that everyone who kissed up to him and fed off him and is spitting on him now that he's down keep their joy to themselves," Barnea wrote. Every Israeli knows who the ones who kissed up to Olmert are -- they are sitting in the Yedioth Ahronoth building.
Indeed, Judge David Rozen's verdict gives us food for thought about that same "kissing up" to the rich and mighty. To the firms that run pyramid schemes. Yedioth tends to lick the boots of these organizations. Israel Hayom, on the other hand, has taken a line against over-powerful organizations since it was founded.
MK Ilan Gilon (Meretz) expressed this obligation glibly on Tuesday in a statement about why he was supporting the anti-Israel Hayom bill. "We must guarantee that journalism has teeth, that it exposes corruption and prompts investigations," he declared. Rightfully so. Israel Hayom, unlike Yedioth -- whose interests are served by that bill Gilon put his name to -- does not kiss up to tycoons. Yedioth backed Avraham Hirschson and Haim Ramon and attacked the Supreme Court, which attempted to put a stop to government corruption. We supported rule of law -- see the efforts by my colleagues Mordechai Gilat and Dan Margalit, for example. It is probable that Gilon will find a way to explain away this paradox.
Barnea, too.
By the way, the word "bribery" doesn't appear once in Barnea's entire column. Neither does the word "Holyland." OK, fine -- it's much more comfortable that way.
It might take many years. People will sweat from the effort and sometimes their faces will show signs of angst. Their feet might falter, and they will hold on by the tips of their fingers. But we cannot give up. No, we must not despair. Because in the end, someone will discover the difference between the chorus of voices calling out that Aryeh Deri was innocent and those who say the same about Olmert.
On Tuesday, this chorus went to town on every channel, trying to pull the wool over people's eyes with the theory that this whole trial was just a preview of the battle that will take place in the Supreme Court. So Olmert took a small hit, but who is Judge David Rozen, anyway, and what does he know? The judge, they squawk one after the other, convicted Olmert on the basis of his impression (which is completely incorrect, but if you repeat a lie enough times, someone might believe it) and has no evidence, and has no idea what he's doing, and the district court is a joke. We know the truth and they smirk as if sitting on a secret that will come out in the Supreme Court.
טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו