Case 4,000, the latest corruption investigation involving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is being played out in the media in the most simplistic of ways, trying to sell the public a story that is easy to understand.
The case centers on potentially illicit dealings and conflict of interest involving Israeli telecom corporation Bezeq and the Walla news website, which Bezeq owns. The police allege that Bezeq controlling shareholder Shaul Elovitch ensured positive coverage by Walla for Netanyahu, in exchange for the prime minister promoting government regulations worth hundreds of millions of dollars to the company.
The media illustrates this complex investigation by pitting the "bad guys" – Netanyahu, Elovitch and Bezeq – against the "good guys" – other companies, websites and Bezeq functionaries, such as former Communications Ministry Director General Avi Berger, who Netanyahu replaced with Shlomo Filber. The latter has turned state's witness in case 4,000.
In this story, Bezeq's interests are portrayed as "greed," while its rivals, telecommunication giants Partner, Hot and Cellcom are portrayed as "guarding public interest. "
The problem here is that the workings of the Communications Ministry are far more complex than it seems, and the decisions the ministry has made over the years have affected a wide range of interests pertaining to various companies.
There is no need to look far for examples showing the extent to which senior ministry officials were involved in influencing the interests of the telecommunications industry.
Berger, for example, was a member of the public committee named in 2008 to review ways to promote competition in the Israeli telecom industry. Later that year he was named VP of technologies at Partner Communications; in 2014 he was named chief of the Communications Ministry; and today he provides consulting services to Partner's rival, Cellcom.
Haran Levot, a former Communications Ministry economist, held a senior position in Expon Communications before taking the government positions, something noted in the conflict of interest clause of his contract; the ministry's legal counsel Dana Neufeld was barred from dealing with strategic issues pertaining to telecommunications infrastructure; and we have yet to say one word about former Bezeq CEO Avi Gabbay, whose ties with high-ranking decision-makers in the period prior to his entering politics were never questioned.
Many members of public committees reviewing issues relating to the telecommunications industry are also linked to the different players in various ways, and there is no shortage of controversial decisions.
No one is accusing anyone of tainted considerations, but there is no denying the existence of a deep symbiosis between Communication Ministry officials and key players in the industry they oversee.
The police do not investigate every decision because that is the nature of politics. Any regulation decision deemed "bad" for one company is almost always "good" for its rivals, and turning every controversial decision that has benefited one company or another – and there are too many examples to mention – into a criminal investigation is impossible.
But these norms do not apply to Netanyahu. Here every possibility, no matter how slim or remote, to present his decisions as stemming from irrelevant or tainted considerations is immediately parlayed into a series of investigations, arrests and leaks. The criminalization of politics in Israel only works in one direction and that should concern all of us.
