Israel's Corruption Problem

If one corruption probe is a political inconvenience, contending with four separate investigations must be especially bothersome for Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister. 

In the first probe, dubbed Case 1000, various members of the Netanyahu family are accused of accepting expensive gifts from two wealthy individuals, although the Prime Minister maintains those gifts were not part of any quid pro quo. Case 2000 concerns allegations that Netanyahu sought to secure more favourable coverage from Yediot Ahronot, a daily newspaper, by offering to restrict the circulation of Yisrael Hayom, a rival tabloid. Case 3000 centres on claims that an associate of Netanyahu orchestrated the acquisition of submarines from a company with which he had private business dealings. The final probe, Case 4000, is focused on allegations that Netanyahu failed to inform the State Comptroller of his relationship with Shaul Elovitch, the controlling shareholder in Israel’s largest telecoms company, at a time when Netanyahu was involved in key decisions that benefitted Elovitch’s media interests. The probe is also investigating the possibility that the principal news-site owned by Elovitch moderated criticism of Netanyahu as part of an illicit arrangement with the Prime Minister. 

Netanyahu is not short of company in his legal woes. His wife Sara is reportedly facing indictment for using public funds to refurnish their private residence, among other financial misdemeanours. For an even starker illustration of endemic corruption in Israeli politics, one need look no further than the remarkable case of Aryeh Deri. In 2000, Deri began a two year prison sentence for accepting $155,000 in bribes during his tenure as Interior Minister. After completing his prison term and a further period of ten years during which, as a convicted criminal, he was barred from reentering the cabinet, Deri returned to politics in 2011 and reassumed the role of Interior Minister just last year. Months later, Israeli legal authorities announced that Deri was again under investigation for corruption. 

An analysis of corruption in Israeli politics reveals other trends. Foremost is the increasing frequency with which corruption probes focus on the intersection of politics and the media. Starting in earnest with the creation of the free daily Yisrael Hayom by Netanyahu’s US billionaire backer, Sheldon Adelson, in 2007, Israel’s media interests have gradually been consolidated under the control of a handful of wealthy figures, including Elovitch, Adelson and Arnon Mozes, the publisher of Yediot Ahronot. Ten years later, Cases 2000 and 4000 would appear to be the unsightly offspring of this development. 

All the above might suggest that politics in Israel, as in many of its neighbours, is hopelessly corrupt. In reality, however, Israeli politicians’ penchant for corruption is matched only by the apparent consistency with which the country’s legal authorities uncover improprieties. Netanyahu’s predecessor as premier, for example, was released from prison only two months ago after serving a 16 month sentence for fraud and bribery. As for Netanyahu himself, the allegations against him have emerged from extensive police investigations, and Israeli media reporting suggests that an indictment is likely to follow. 

These cases reflect the near-unique situation in Israel whereby corrupt politicians coexist with competent legal authorities, although this description of Israel’s law enforcement agencies as effective institutions could be objected to. After all, any number of corrupt acts may have remained undetected, and figures for convictions are dwarfed by the number of investigations that never reach fruition. Netanyahu, for example, has been investigated on two previous occasions, while Isaac Herzog, until recently leader of the opposition, has also been investigated twice. 

Nevertheless, there is little reason to believe that Israel’s issues with corruption stem from flaws within the country’s legal apparatus. Indeed, a range of international monitors have commended Israel’s anti-corruption regime. Moreover, the abundance of successful convictions indicates that the large number of abortive investigations is more likely to be a result of ambiguities in Israel’s anti-corruption laws, rather than ineffectiveness in enforcing those laws. 

With this apparently effective deterrent, why then do Israeli politicians, apparently in defiance of any rational calculation, engage in corrupt acts that are so consistently uncovered by the state’s legal authorities? In response to this conundrum, many Israelis instinctively point to the country’s familial culture. This is a country, after all, where employers will openly inform job applicants that knowing someone at the firm will improve your prospects. And yet, while few would dispute that this background helps to explain the culture of corruption in the country’s politics, it cannot explain why politicians engage in criminal acts that are ultimately self-destructive. 

A more plausible explanation may be that perceptions are more important than reality. While the available evidence indicates that Israel’s legal authorities are scrupulous in their work, the public and their politicians do not appear to have received that message. According to a 2013 poll, 33% of Israelis believe that their judicial authorities are compromised by corruption. If the country’s politicians share that conviction, it could well explain their continued proclivity for corruption. 

One final factor pushing politicians to misconduct is the apparent absence of any electoral punishment for their misdemeanours. Across much of the developed world, mere allegations of corruption are sufficient to induce resignations. By contrast, Aryeh Deri was re-elected to parliament and seamlessly returned to the same position he had corruptly exploited. Netanyahu’s polling figures have barely suffered amid the multiple allegations made against him. 

With the populace evidently unwilling to punish politicians for their corruption, attention has turned to legislation that requires ministers indicted for an act of moral turpitude to resign their post. Israel’s judicial authorities may yet have to rule on whether this provision is applicable to Netanyahu’s case. In the event that the courts do oust the country’s Prime Minister, it would signal a dramatic end to the career of one of Israel’s most prolific politicians. Indeed, while previous prime ministers have stepped down in similar circumstances, a court-ordered resignation would be an unprecedented assertion of judicial authority. In another respect, however, a ruling of this kind would represent merely one more example of Israel’s legal authorities meting out punishment to a politician for their misdeeds and miscalculations.