Almost 10 years after Yedioth Ahronoth turned Channel 10 reporter Raviv Drucker into chopped liver by second-guessing his journalism ethics, the paper did a complete 180 last week and published a flattering profile piece on him. The interviewer Yehuda Nuriel painted Drucker as the hero of the century, just a notch below the elite Sayeret Matkal heroes who stormed the hijacked Sabena airplane in 1972. The interview is a CliffsNotes guide for the Israeli Left's wishful thinking. Nuriel begins the interview by extolling Drucker's virtues. He then goes on to claim that Drucker's reporting, which brought to light the alleged corruption surrounding the acquisition of submarines and other naval vessels (the "submarine affair"), makes him worthy of a Pulitzer ("if the scandal reaches the top echelons"). He also calls him the "top contender for the next political assassination." The Left, which feels that it was robbed of its hold on power, has tried for years to get it back, not by winning over the public with its brilliant ideas. No, it has chosen instead to use endless chatter and throw every possible accusation against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, hoping something sticks. After Drucker exposed the submarine affair, the frustrated Left's expectations rose dramatically. According to the narrative it would like you to believe, Netanyahu bought unnecessary submarines in order to enrich his personal lawyer and cousin. In other words, the Left would like us to believe that the prime minister not only engaged in corruption, but also committed outright treason, never mind that the attorney general himself has made it clear that Netanyahu was not implicated in the affair. As a famous Aramaic proverb notes, once some falsehood gains currency, it is hard to get rid of it. Nuriel's underlying premise is that Netanyahu is guilty. This is also the underlying premise guiding those protesting in front of the attorney general's home in Petach Tikva who want him to issue a verdict before there is a trial. Don't fall for their rallying cries and their sales pitch. The slogans they use -- "strengthening democracy," "freedom of assembly" -- are just a charade. The claim that Drucker should win a Pulitzer has a lot to do with how the Left builds, or props up, its heroes. It has used the Israel Prize as a tool to elevate those who are considered politically loyal. Likewise, the canonization of Israeli literature is determined not according the content and its quality but according to who the writers are. This is also how the recipients of the Sokolow Prize, the Israeli equivalent of the Pulitzer, are chosen (with the exception of a few token right-wing recipients). But for someone to be a real cultural giant in Israel, awards are not enough. You have be a potential target of a political assassination. If you are, that means you must be speaking the gospel truth. And that, my friends, is how Drucker became a martyr. Nuriel and Drucker, who believe they are sitting on a perch that grants them the status of super-journalists, have ridiculed the interview the conservative Channel 20 held with Netanyahu, blind to the fact that the interview they jointly produced ignored all of Drucker's failures and had no hardball questions. In fact, answering Nuriel's questions was like shooting fish in a barrel. They also mocked an article on Mida, a right-wing website, because it elaborated on the ties between Drucker and Yoram Rabin, who was appointed as the State Comptroller's Office legal counsel. Drucker and Rabin have until recently led the Movement for Freedom of Information, which has clashed with Netanyahu on several issues. It is one thing to have Drucker be linked to that movement, but why did Nuriel choose not to scrutinize Rabin's appointment- At one point during the interview, Drucker and Nuriel became serious and talked about the "peace process." It was then that Drucker's hallmark -- a lack of depth -- came to the forefront. Drucker, who is a pundit when he does not do investigative reporting, said that the peace process was destroyed because of Netanyahu's "personal shortcomings" and blamed the prime minister for "not seizing the great opportunity he had to advance the peace process with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, the best partner he could have imagined." I have previously written that Drucker can't, even if he tries really hard, discard the superficial materialistic prism through which he views the conflict with our neighbors. As far as he is concerned, everything is personal; there is no ideology; as if there are no 1,400 years of religious wars; as if the bloody history never took place; and of course, as if Israel never made generous offers. Yedioth's hatred of Netanyahu is not new. But why has the paper decided to make this journalist humanity's savior? Knowing what we know about how Yedioth treats its rivals, it is likely that it got something in return for the rehabilitation (absolution, in fact) of Drucker. There is one thing that stands out in the interview, and you have to sift through the heap of praise before you can find it. I am referring to Drucker's comments on Case 2,000, the investigation that centers on conversations Netanyahu had with Yedioth Ahronoth Publisher Noni Mozes in which they allegedly discussed striking an illicit deal. Drucker said: "I think the case will end without an indictment. Despite the ugly discussions, taking this relationship to a criminal level ... such a thing has never been done and using the prime minister as the first such instance would be quite a big jump." And there you have it: Perhaps this statement explains why the interview was conducted in the first place. Drucker would have never been interviewed had the paper not made sure he delivered the goods and cleared Mozes of any wrongdoing.
