"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," is a famous quote by 19th century British politician and historian Lord Acton.
And when corruption is not limited to a few people or a government but invades the very system designed to prevent government corruption, it is far worse.
On Sunday, Channel 10 News revealed text messages between Tel Aviv Magistrates' Court Judge Ronit Poznanski-Katz and Israel Securities Authority investigator Eran Shaham-Shavit, suggesting the two had illicitly coordinated arraignment proceedings in Case 4,000, the corruption investigation involving Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's close circle and alleged media manipulation.
This revelation could very well be just the tip of the iceberg as far as destructive norms in the justice system go.
If we know that a judge and an attorney coordinated in advance the number of days a given suspect was to be kept in custody (and the attorney even asked the judge to "look surprised"), is anyone naive enough to believe that this only happened once? And does anyone think this phenomenon is confined to remand hearings and not to verdicts or sentencing?
Of all the pending cases against Netanyahu, the only corruption case with the potential to actually harm the state is Case 1,270. The case deals with allegations that in 2015, Netanyahu's close adviser Nir Hefetz offered former judge Hila Gerstel an appointment as attorney general appointment in exchange for her closing a case against Netanyahu's wife, Sara, for allegedly abusing public funds.
But the picture beginning to emerge from all this raises much more concern about the judiciary branch than the corruption allegations against the executive branch. Without speedy answers to some serious questions, the authorities tasked with preventing corruption will be operating under a heavy cloud of suspicion.
According to media reports, a shocked Gerstel immediately relayed the attorney general appointment offer to her colleague Esther Hayut, now the chief justice. Hayut gave her testimony on the issue to the media, thereby obstructing the investigation, for all intents and purposes.
Hayut claims she had obtained police approval before spilling the beans to the media. But who gave her this approval, and why? Until now, no one has ever received such approval. How would something like this help the investigation? The only possible benefit to be gained from making Hayut's testimony so public is that perhaps someone realized that the case was not going in the "right" direction and decided to help everyone involved to get their stories straight.
And what is, in fact, the difference between the testimonies? Gerstel testified that she reported the alleged bribery attempt in "real time," meaning that it was during the selection process for the post of attorney general, or before Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit was appointed. According to Hayut, Gerstel told her about the offer because she was shocked, but only in retrospect, meaning after Mendelblit was already appointed.
If Hayut's version is true, Gerstel needs to be held accountable for failing to report such a serious incident immediately after it happened. Why did she sit on such volatile information, knowing that bribes were being offered to potential candidates for the position of attorney general, the highest prosecutorial position in Israel?
If we assume Gerstel's version is true, then why did Hayut, a Supreme Court justice at the time, wait and not do anything with the explosive material she had received, when she received it?
And the most disturbing question is: Which one of them is not telling the truth? The chief justice of the Supreme Court or a former judge? And why?
In either case, Hayut comes out badly. Even if she received the information in retrospect, and even if the account was too vague, she should have immediately told the police (after all, isn't it their job to clarify vague information?). Her position obligates it, as does precedent: Mendelblit was interrogated under caution in the Harpaz affair for withholding a document from the police for a mere 24 hours.
In this context, it is interesting to note that one of the charges against Netanyahu in another case – Case 2,000 which focuses on an illicit agreement between the prime minister and newspaper publisher Arnon Mozes – is that he failed to report Mozes' offer to give him positive coverage in his paper, Yedioth Ahronoth, in exchange for legislation that would benefit the paper. If this is the precedent, then Hayut's two and a half year delay in reported the alleged bribery attempt obligates her to resign immediately or offer some pretty convincing explanations if she is to restore the public's faith in the Supreme Court.
I would expect the Israeli police to question the two judges extensively, and with the same enthusiasm displayed by Netanyahu's interrogators. Otherwise, we risk entering the realm of selective enforcement.
