The Israel Police apparently misused spyware during the investigation into the so-called Submarine Affair in breach of a court warrant that had set specific restrictions on its employment by law enforcement officials, Israel Hayom has learned.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram

The Submarine Affair, also known as Case 3000, is an alleged graft case that shocked the nation when it was first reported several years ago and is seen as one of the gravest scandals in the defense establishment's history. Prosecutors claim there was a possible conflict of interest and bribery involving a $2 billion purchase of naval vessels from Germany's Thyssenkrupp that implicated some of former Prime Minister Netanyahu's closest associates. While the alleged misconduct happened during Netanyahu's term in office, he has not been named a suspect.

In February 2017, Judge Tal Avraham granted investigators a limited warrant to electronically tap the mobile device of one of the then-suspects, Vice Adm. (ret.) Eliezer Marom, which allowed the limited use of spyware. But Israel Hayom has learned that the technology was ultimately used to extract data whose scope went far beyond the extent stipulated in the warrant. This included contacts, text messages, and additional electronic material. The State Attorney's Office and the Israel Police said in response that "the information was never handed over to the investigative team" although the statement remained mum on whether the data gleaned was used in any other capacity. The prosecution ultimately decided not to indict Marom and dropped the charges, although it is not clear whether the use of the spyware contributed to the decision. 

The other suspects in the case include former ‎National Security Council Deputy ‎Director ‎‎Avriel Bar ‎Yosef, Israeli businessman Miki Ganor, former prime minister's bureau chief ‎David Sharan. Netanyahu's attorney at the time David Shimron was a suspect but ultimately saw the charges dropped. 

Israel Hayom has learned that Ganor and Bar Yosef's wife, Aliza, were also targeted by spyware without proper authorization. Like in Marom's case, this resulted in the extraction of information that exceeded the permitted parameters. In the case of Ganor, the spyware was used for 50 days. 

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

The post Revealed: Spyware used by law enforcement in 'Submarine Affair' exceeded scope of warrant appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Dubbed "Case 3,000," the scandal centers on a possible conflict ‎of ‎interest surrounding the 2 billion euro procurement ‎of ‎ ‎submarines and naval vessels ‎from ‎German ‎conglomerate ‎ThyssenKrupp in 2016‎.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

In a statement, the Justice Ministry said prosecutors accepted recommendations police made last year on the indictments in the case.

Netanyahu was questioned, but not named as a suspect, in the submarine probe.

The suspects in Case 3,000 include Netanyahu's attorney ‎and ‎cousin David Shimron, former National Security Council Deputy ‎Director ‎Avriel Bar-Yosef, Israeli businessman Miki Ganor, who ‎was ‎the German company's representative in Israel, former Israeli ‎Navy Commander Vice Adm. ‎‎(ret.) Eliezer Marom, Shay Brosh, former commander of the navy's elite Shayetet 13 commando unit, and David Sharan, who ‎served as the prime minister's bureau chief between late 2014 and ‎mid-2016. ‎

Pending pre-trial hearings, Shimron will be charged with money laundering. Sharan, Marom and Ganor will face that charge as well as bribery, the ministry said.

Netanyahu, who was in Lisbon on a state visit, had no comment on the indictments.

Thyssenkrupp has said an internal probe found no evidence of corruption in its handling of the 2016 contract for the sale of three submarines to Israel, and Israeli prosecutors have taken no action against the conglomerate.

The post Prime suspects in submarine graft case to face bribery, fraud charges appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Investigators claim that the clip, one of many recordings being used as evidence in Case 2000 – one of three cases in which Israel's Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit may soon issue formal indictments against the prime minister – shows Netanyahu discussing favorable coverage in Yedioth in exchange for legislation.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

A steady stream of leaks from all three cases have been gifted to the media for the purpose of souring much of Israel's political establishment and public on Netanyahu's otherwise intractable reign as Israel's longest-serving prime minister.

Yet according to a high-profile international legal team that rushed to Netanyahu's defense during recent pre-indictment hearings, Netanyahu's attempts to influence the media are standard practice for politicians and not criminal in nature, even if political favors were granted in return for positive coverage.

Furthermore, if criminal charges are ultimately filed against him for trading such favors for coverage, they argued, it would represent an unimpressive first for any society operating with a free press.

Professor Avi Bell, a member of the Faculty of Law at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan and the University of San Diego School of Law, and one of the lawyers who submitted the brief challenging the tentative charges against Netanyahu, told JNS that "prosecuting a bribery charge in these cases is a mistake. Pursuing these charges is unprecedented in the democratic world, dangerous to the fabric of Israeli democracy and ill-advised."

The brief, authored by Bell as well as Alan Dershowitz, Nathan Lewin, Richard Heideman and Joseph Tipograph, and presented to Mendelblit and state prosecutors during the pre-indictment hearings by Bell and Lewin, insists that positive media coverage can never constitute a bribe.

"There is no case we can find anywhere in the democratic world where positive coverage has ever been considered a potential 'bribe,'" said Bell.

The brief submitted by Netanyahu's attorneys demonstrates that "media empires … routinely exchange favorable coverage for official acts."

The document presents a litany of examples whereby media moguls such as William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer have implicitly traded positive coverage for political favors that include the altering of government policies and regulations that financially benefited the media owners.

Specifically, the brief references multiple examples negotiated decades apart between Rupert Murdoch, and British premiers Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair.

Particularly in today's age of polarized media, it is literally the business of outlets to provide positive coverage to those politicians or candidates they like, while providing negative coverage of those politicians they don't. And it is the job of politicians and candidates to secure the best possible coverage they can, while ensuring that their political rivals receive the worst coverage possible.

Politicians consistently lobby media outlets with whatever they have at their disposal to gain improved coverage. They will often provide scoops and otherwise hard-to-get access to reporters with the understanding that coverage will be in their favor. And media outlets are happy to play along, even actively courting such favors. These are simply the often-not-so-pretty operating procedures of a for-profit free press.

Bell told JNS that "if bargains for positive coverage between public officials and media figures can be punished as bribes, then every report about a matter of public interest is potentially the basis of a bribery charge, and every interaction between a journalist and a public official is potentially relevant evidence of a crime."

Furthermore, even the lesser misdemeanor charge of breach of trust may be inappropriate, he said.

"Treating bargaining between public officials and media figures over positive coverage as a criminal transaction is a danger to free speech," Bell said, "whether that transaction is called the crime of bribery or breach of trust. The bribery-related charges – and this includes the claim in Case 2000 that the prime minister committed a 'breach of trust' by failing to react properly to a proposed 'bribe' of positive coverage – go to the very heart of freedom of speech and freedom of the press."

The result of treating media coverage as a bribe, according to Netanyahu's legal team, would be the effective "chilling of free speech," whereby journalists would refrain from publishing specific types of coverage for fear of potential retroactive prosecution.

According to the team's brief, this "chilling effect" has significant precedent in British and American law and has been thoroughly examined by the European Court of Human Rights, which has ruled that this form of self-censorship "works to the detriment of society as a whole."

"All journalists who report on public affairs will have to worry about finding themselves subject to criminal investigations and arrest," Bell noted, adding that in such a scenario "almost all reporting could potentially be considered a bribe."

This, Bell explains, would create an unprecedented reality whereby "police and prosecutors will become the final arbiters of what can be reported, rather than the free press." In scenes that would resemble those common in dictatorial regimes, "prosecutors and police would have an enormous power to play favorites," Bell said, which could be used to "intimidate and silence" political opponents.

"It's a nightmare scenario that fits regimes like Turkey and China, and has always been rejected by democratic states outside Israel," Bell stressed.

Complicating the case for Netanyahu, said Bell, is that Israeli bribery law is "unusually strict."

Bell explained that in most of the democratic world, "a bribe is an illicit payment in exchange for a favorable official act that gives a benefit to the bribe payer." In Israel, he noted, "almost none of that is necessary. If the bribe payer hopes to get a benefit in the future, but doesn't have anything specific in mind, it can still be a bribe."

Furthermore, he added, "there doesn't have to be a benefit to the bribe payer. If the bribe payer gets exactly the same services he or she would have received without the bribe, the criminal law still considers it a bribe."

Bell suggested that the combination of this overly strict interpretation of bribery and positive coverage potentially being classified as bribery was "particularly dangerous."

"Prosecutors could put journalists in jail for seven years as long as they could prove that their coverage helped someone and the judge inferred that the journalist had an expectation of benefiting," said Bell. "And public officials could be convicted any time they delivered an official service of any kind to someone who wrote a nice story about them."

Meanwhile, the requirements for proving or disproving the lesser, misdemeanor charge of breach of trust is very much open to interpretation.

"One of the real problems here," Bell said, "is that – as many Israeli judges have noted – a breach of trust is a crime without a clear definition, so what looks like a breach of trust depends very much on the judge."

Bell noted that "it is possible, of course, for there to be a breach of trust in some other aspect of the cases, if, for example, Netanyahu acted improperly aside from the alleged bargain for positive coverage. But no such allegation appears in the interim charge sheet, so there doesn't seem to be a case of breach of trust in either case 2,000 or 4,000 [in which Netanyahu allegedly struck a deal with another media organization]."

The irony of the cases regarding Netanyahu's attempts to manipulate the media is that the very same investigators and prosecution attempting to hold him accountable may have themselves been manipulating the press, and through it public opinion.

By leaking what should otherwise be legally protected evidence, referendums on Netanyahu's conduct are simultaneously taking place within the offices of the attorney general and state prosecutors, as well as at the ballot box and the Knesset during protracted rounds of parliamentary coalition negotiations.

Yet if the same stringent theories are applied to the prosecution's manipulation of the media as are being applied to Netanyahu's, one could easily argue that the leaks themselves are bribes. Such leaks constitute immeasurable favors to the media outlets who receive them, in the form of readership and ratings, which provide direct monetary benefit to media owners.

"According to the prosecution's theory that helpful news coverage is a bribe, all the leaks are potential bribes," said Bell, "and the only way to know if they are lawful is to haul in all the relevant journalists and investigators, and interrogate them about their motives."

So why aren't the leaks being restricted or even prosecuted? Bell noted that ironically, "Several years ago, legislation was proposed that would have made the illegality of such leaks clear. However, the proposed legislation was controversial for the obvious reason that it would have punished speech and would harm free speech."

This, Bell contended, further illustrated the danger of creating such a broad crime by allowing positive coverage to be considered bribery.

"The lack of prosecutorial attention to the leaks as bribes or to the other media bargains, such as between former MK Eitan Cabel and Mozes in Case 2,000, as bribes shows how dangerous it is to create a crime that can potentially attack everyone, but will in practice only be used against a disfavored few," he said.

Yet Bell doesn't suggest that the leaks be investigated or prosecuted. "I don't think the right response to unfair leaks is to make even more speech subject to criminal penalty," he said.

"It's quite clear that whatever the flaws in politician-media relationships in Israel today, there's nothing that would be as devastating to freedom of speech as giving the police power to inspect the motives of all news coverage that helps or hurts a public figure," said Bell. "The damage to freedom of speech and, more generally, to a free society, would be incalculable."

It appears that the case made by Bell and Netanyahu's international legal team may yet have a significant impact on the charges to be leveled in the coming weeks by the attorney general.

The attorney general is expected to announce whether or not he intends to indict Netanyahu in the coming weeks, possibly during the ongoing coalition negotiating period now led by Netanyahu's challenger, Blue and White leader Benny Gantz.

If charges are dropped or reduced, Netanyahu's chances of remaining in power may improve. Yet the damage to his reputation and tenure as prime minister due to an unprecedented legal process may already be irreversible.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org

Alex Traiman is managing director and Jerusalem Bureau Chief of Jewish News Syndicate.

The post The unintended consequences of a Netanyahu indictment appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

"This is the definition of injustice," Netanyahu said after Mendelblit informed his lawyers that he had rejected his request to hold the hearing only after he swears in a new government in late 2019.

Several months ago Mendelblit released a report laying out the charges against Netanyahu in three corruption cases, saying he would make a final decision on an indictment after Netanyahu appeared for a hearing.

The charges include allegations that he accepted gifts from billionaire friends and promoted beneficial regulations for a telecom magnate in exchange for positive coverage on a news site.

Netanyahu's lawyers and Mendelblit set the hearing for October, but last week the Knesset dissolved unexpectedly after the collapse of coalition talks and a new election was called for Sept. 17, less than six months after Israelis went to the polls and gave Netanyahu and his right-wing allies a clear mandate to lead the country again.

"Because of the unprecedented situation in which a new election is being imposed on us, law enforcement should show flexibility on the date of the hearing," Netanyahu said, citing other cases in which subjects of corruption investigations were given extra time in light of changing circumstances.

The post PM slams AG for denying delay in corruption hearing appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

In the months leading up to that meeting, there were discussions in Israel and Germany about the possibility of signing a memorandum of understanding with the German government. The document was supposed to define what kind of naval vessels Israel would purchase from Germany over the next few years. Nagel and Netanyahu, who had studied the matter ahead of the meeting with Merkel, provided a clear answer. Nagel told his German counterpart, head of national security Christoph Hausmann, that Israel would not be acquiring anti-submarine ships. Netanyahu updated Merkel that Israel did intend to acquire three new submarines.

That agreement would eventually turn into the "submarines affair," which is the focus of Case 3,000. But Nagel, who saw for himself how things played out, does not believe the claims being made against Netanyahu.

In an interview to the Israel Hayom weekend magazine, Nagel says that "to the best of my professional understanding, the process of acquiring [Israel's] seventh, eighth, and ninth submarines – from the moment I learned of it in October 2015 – was one of the cleanest, most orderly acquisitions there has ever been."

'We need a Palestinian Sadat'

Nagel, 62, lives in Rosh Ha'ayin. He is married and a father of four, a grandfather of five, and a brigadier-general in the reserves. He started his defense and security career on a special track out of high school with the 8200 intelligence unit. After 17 years there, he transferred to the Mafaat – the Defense Ministry's Research and Development Agency – where he served in a number of roles until he joined the National Security Council in 2011. He made his mark with the Nagel Commission ("there were a lot of Nagel Committees, but I'm proudest of that one," he says), which recommended that Israel develop the Iron Dome missile defense system. Then, too, he and his partners – Mafaat head Shmuel Keren and Director-General of the Defense Ministry Pinchas Bucharis – felt the pressure the system knows how to exert when it opposes the political echelon's instructions about acquisitions or developments.

"We were the target of insane attacks," Nagel said in an interview two years ago.

Nagel stepped in to head the NSC after his predecessor Yossi Cohen was appointed head of the Mossad. The appointment of Avriel Bar Yosef, who had been selected to replace Cohen, was cancelled when he came under suspicion of criminal activity. Later on, those suspicions were linked to the submarines affair. Netanyahu was satisfied with Nagel's performance and asked him several times to take on the job permanently, but Nagel declined for personal reasons.

In effect, Nagel was head of the NSC and national security advisor from January 2016 to April 2017. He led the talks on the U.S. aid package to Israel for the decade to come (and was even the Israeli signatory to it); the reconciliation agreement between Israel and Turkey; and several issues that lay at the core of diplomatic-security activity. Since leaving the post, he has been a guest lecturer at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, where he lectures on policy and strategy in research and development and directs the Center for Defense Information and Technology. Here and there, he talks to the media about what he knows about the submarines affair, but after several instances in which his comments were twisted, decided to keep quiet until the election was over. Now that his version of events cannot be accused of being used to influence voters, he is ready to speak.

This week, Israel Hayom revealed elements of an article on Netanyahu's defense outlook Nagel is writing for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

"They always say things here are a mess. So here, for the first time since [Israel's first Prime Minister David] Ben-Gurion, a prime minister who apparently intends to remain in office for several years to come, says 'This is what you should aim for.' A defense outlook affects force-building in the IDF 20 or 30 years down the road. A big part of the outlook document is classified, and it includes instructions that cannot be revealed," he says.

Q: Did Netanyahu write his defense outlook by himself?

"He wrote it along with the military leadership, the NSC, and his closest associates. The document was presented in sub rosa forums in the defense establishment and the Knesset. People close to Netanyahu, like the former head of the NSC, read it and gave him notes."

Q: What are the main differences between Netanyahu's defense outlook and Ben-Gurion's?

"Ben-Gurion, for example, decided that we had to be ready for an outbreak of violence against us every few years, which is indeed what happened. Netanyahu says that we need to be ready for an ongoing war. Secondly, today we need to be prepared for all kinds of enemies. Nations, demi-nations, political terror organizations like the International Criminal Court in The Hague and BDS. Netanyahu also added the need to defend Jewish communities worldwide. These are things that didn't exist in Ben-Gurion's time."

Q: If there is constant war, doesn't that mean that the security situation has gotten worse?

"Not at all. Overall, in terms of security, Israel's situation is very good, and has maybe never been better. The glass is a lot more full than empty."

Q: Many people are disappointed that the IDF has not defeated Hamas. What are we missing?

"The Gaza Strip is a problem for which I don't currently see a solution. The biggest concessions we would make don't meet their minimum demands, so there's no one to talk to, or anything to talk about. Will we occupy Gaza? Will we beat Hamas? I'm in favor of it, but what will we do then? Who will replace them?"

Nagel says that the only solution is for a figure like former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to arise, who would change the Palestinians' thinking.

"They used to think that [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud] Abbas would be someone like that, but he isn't doing the job – not in Gaza and not in Judea and Samaria. They need someone from inside."

'Get China out of Haifa Port'

Q: You were in the NSC for six years. For years, it was the poor cousin of the defense establishment. Is it now doing its job as the prime minister's diplomatic-security brain?

"The NSC serves as the prime minister's right hand in all areas of security and diplomacy. The head of the NSC prepares every diplomatic conversation the prime minister holds with world leaders, and is on the line while it takes place. There are situations in which the talks would get into politics, and then I, for example, would get off the line or stop listening.

"The NSC is not meant to supplant the Defense Ministry, and it doesn't. The NSC looks at the macro, makes observations, and presents alternatives. The way I see it, the strength of the NSC is tested by how far the NSC head sits from the prime minister. Today, a single office – the chief of staff's – separates us, and the military secretary sits across from us. These are the people closest to the prime minister, and that's how it should be."

Q: For quite some time, there has been talk of the Chinese investing in sensitive fields in Israel. This week, the issue was raised in discussions your successor, Meir Ben Shabbat, held in Washington. What is your opinion?

"Of course, I don't know what was discussed by my excellent successor at the NSC. It's important to me to make it clear that I have no problem with China or with any other country that wants to invest in Israel, but we need to demarcate what is open to them and what is not. As head of the NSC, I discovered to my amazement that problematic deals could go through without the NSC or the Defense Ministry being aware of them or expressing an opinion. Today, the situation is that if we want to sell something security-related, we need approval from the Defense Ministry. In other words, there is oversight. On the other hand, when it comes to civilian products, anyone can do what they want. The Tel Aviv light rail, Phoenix insurance, Bank Leumi or a port – every ministry decides based on its own considerations. That's not plausible.

"When we're talking about vital national infrastructures, or harm to our close allies, there needs to be oversight – and it doesn't matter if the country is China, Japan, or anyone else. Everyone knows about the cyber threat. Imagine a state of emergency in which a foreign country has control of our traffic lights."

Q: Should we cancel the construction of the new Haifa Port by a Chinese firm?

"In my opinion, we should consider a change, or even a cancellation, of that plan, if it's possible."

The submarines affair, in five acts

Q: Many people, including former Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, say that Netanyahu and his people wanted to purchase the submarines and other vessels to line their own pockets, and what Netanyahu did approaches treason. What is your response?

"I don't intend to address remarks by officials I greatly respect, some of whom were my commanders and even gave me my stripes. I can only lay out the facts as I know them, and it could be that I don't know everything. I can say that at no stage was there any intention for Israel to be in possession of nine submarines simultaneously. That was never an option, and anyone who says differently is either making things up or doesn't know the facts."

Q: So what did happen?

"When people talk about the naval vessels, there are essentially five different stories, some of which have nothing to do with each other. The first story is the sixth submarine. There was an argument for years about whether Israel needed five or six submarines. The defense establishment said five were enough; the political echelon, which by the way included former Defense Minister Ehud Barak, decided back in 2010 that six were necessary. The political echelon has the full authority to force its opinion on the matter to be accepted, as happened with many battles over weaponry, such as Iron Dome, satellite development, and other things.

"Every submarine has an 'expiration date,' which is determined the day it is launched and after which it cannot be used. Secondly, 10 to 12 years pass from the moment the contract to purchase a submarine is signed until it arrives in Israel. In other words, theoretically, a replacement for a submarine that is decommissioned in 2027 should have been ordered in 2015, so we were behind schedule for some of the submarines. Practically speaking, when it comes to submarines, there is no country other than Germany to buy them from, and in Germany, you buy from ThyssenKrupp."

Q: What is the second story?

"The second story, which I know from NSC documents, is about the patrol boats to defend the natural gas rigs. There is not and never was any dispute about the need for those boats. There was a question about whom to buy them from, because unlike submarines, there are alternatives."

Q: Ya'alon contends that the prime minister stopped an international tender for the patrol boats put out by the Defense Ministry. He sees it as more proof of corrupt conspiracy.

"I don't respond to things someone says. This is a lengthy process that took several years. The Defense Ministry put out a tender for the boats, and did so against the instructions of head of the NSC at the time, Yossi Cohen. The tender was published in the morning, and the written orders not to put out a tender apparently arrived that afternoon."

Q: If there are alternatives to the German patrol boats, why not publish a tender?

"The entire time, Israel was making attempts to get Germany to give it a discount on the boats. The Germans dragged their feet and tried to link the discount to the Palestinian issue. At one stage, the Defense Ministry thought they couldn't wait any longer and decided to put out an international tender. But then the prime minister spoke with Merkel by phone, and he convinced her to give Israel the discount. By the way, the finance minister at the time, Yair Lapid, and the defense minister at the time, Avigdor Lieberman, were both involved in these negotiations. The Defense Ministry still wanted to see the Germans put in writing their willingness to give us the discount, so they put out a tender. The NSC, as I said, opposed it, and the tender was stopped."

On the matter of the patrol boats, there is no dispute between Nagel and Ya'alon about the facts. They agree that the tender was issued and then canceled, and in the end the Germans gave Israel the discount. The dispute has to do with the reason for the cancellation. Nagel explains that the discount and the importance of maintaining ties with Germany prompted Netanyahu to stop the tender; Ya'alon claims that the decision was motivated by financial interests.

Q: But what about the anti-submarine warships? According to Ya'alon, no one wanted them and there was no need for them.

"That's not accurate. The anti-sub warships apparently have to do with the third scandal, which is the sale of the German submarines to Egypt. Despite countless reports and comments, the Germans did not need Israel's approval to sell submarines to the Egyptians. In contrast to what people say I said, I never contradicted the prime minister on this matter. What I said was that I was not aware of any Israeli approval for the sale of German submarines to Egypt, because the Germans don't need any."

"For years, when the Germans would ask our opinion about selling submarines to Egypt, we would object. The Germans, as a friendly nation, listened to our position, but they were under no obligation to accept it. For example, in a meeting Netanyahu held with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier in November 2014, he told him that Israel objected to the sale of submarines to Egypt, but in March 2015, when he was asked again, Netanyahu didn't object."

Q: What changed?

"Apparently something happened that I prefer not to discuss."

Q: You're referring to what Netanyahu calls "the secret." Do you know what it is?

"Today I know. At the time, I didn't, because I still wasn't in the job [at the NSC]. When I took over as acting NSC head, before that meeting with Merkel in February 2016, I became aware of the subject."

Q: Did the defense minister, the chief of staff, and other senior officials know?

"In hindsight, it turned out that everyone knew. There was a process in which the Germans decided to sell submarines to Egypt, and the Defense Ministry no doubt knew about it."

Q: So why did the prime minister tell Channel 12 news that they didn't?

"That's not exactly what he said. Take note of his words. He said, 'Not everything that the prime minister does the chief of staff or defense minister has to know about.' Everyone took that sentence to mean that he had kept the defense minister and chief of staff out of the loop. But he didn't say that, and what's more, in an interview later on he said that it became clear to him that they did know."

Shouting matches between Netanyahu and Ya'alon

Q: Again, what about the anti-submarine boats, the ones Ya'alon said "no one wanted"?

"That's the fourth story, and here it's possible that part of the process was not entirely in good order. But it has almost nothing to do with the prime minister. From the moment it turned out that the Egyptians were about to receive submarines, the Navy or the NSC thought it could be an opportunity to get anti-submarine warships from the Germans, cheaply. It's a reasonable thought, but apparently, the proposal was not submitted to the NSC from the Defense Ministry in an orderly manner. In October 2015, the prime minister went to visit Merkel, and in the meeting, the request to acquire three new submarines to replace the existing ones was brought up, as well as two anti-submarine ships. The Germans responded with a request that we prepare a document and discuss it at the next meeting.

"Ahead of the next meeting with Merkel, in February 2016, and after submitting a draft of the deal with the Germans to the Defense Ministry, I updated the prime minister that the Defense Ministry objected to the anti-submarine boats. He responded by asking me, 'Remind me what an anti-submarine warship is?' I explained, and he said, 'If they don't want them, take it out of the draft document.' This shows you how minor the issue of the anti-submarine ships was. It was dropped as quickly as it came up, and that was it."

Q: What's the fifth story?

"The fifth story is about the seventh, eighth, and ninth submarines. Like I said, in the meeting with Merkel in October 2015, it was agreed that Israel would prepare an orderly paper on which the request would be presented. At the same time, the IDF's Gideon multi-year work plan was being assembled. The plan included general instructions from the prime minister that were passed on to the NSC and the IDF, according to which Israel should prepare to acquire three more submarines. It was clear to everyone that this meant submarines that would replace the old ones, not that we'd have a total of nine."

Q: Ya'alon says he had shouting matches with the prime minister, and he stopped the submarines deal.

"It's true there was shouting, but nothing was stopped. Netanyahu thought that we were behind schedule and we needed to make a decision about the new submarines. The cabinet gave the green light to sign the MoU [memorandum of understanding] to purchase the submarines in October 2016, and everyone was in favor of acquiring three new submarines, including [then-IDF Chief of Staff Gadi] Eizenkot, because it was obvious the old ones had to be replaced."

Q: If everyone agreed that there was a need for new submarines, why did the Defense Ministry and Ya'alon object?

"I think, and this is a guess, that they were afraid it would hurt the budget for the Gideon plan, so they wanted to put off the matter for a year. But everyone agreed about the need. The argument was about the timing and the final number of submarines we would have a decade on – five or six. So I say that the acquisition of the seventh, eighth, and ninth submarines was the cleanest one there has ever been."

Q: You know some of the suspects in the submarines affair. Do you think they did what the police suspect them of doing?

"I won't address anything that is under investigation by the police. As far as the MoU for the acquisition of the submarines, I dealt with it myself and I can say that no one intervened or tried to intervene, other than the relevant experts. David Sharan (Netanyahu's former chief of staff, who is suspected of taking bribes from Miki Ganor) was sitting in the room next to me and never said word about it. Others didn't, either. I said hi to David Shimron (a former Netanyahu advisor, who represented Ganor) in the hallway once, and beyond that, I never had any contact with him. I know Sharan, [former NSC deputy director] Avriel Bar Yosef, and [former minister] Modi Zandberg, and it never occurred to me they did what they are accused of. The prime minister's decisions on the submarines and the boats were, in my opinion, correct and clear of any outside influence. I accepted those decisions."

Q: What about the possibility that Sharan and the others steered him toward making those decisions?

"That makes no sense, and there is nothing to back it up. I've spent many hours with the prime minister. If he says he never talked about the submarines with Sharan, I believe him, and everyone else should, too."

The post 'The deal for the submarines was clean' appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Netanyahu was dismissive of the arrests, issuingd a statement saying, "Another fake investigation resulting from media pressure. The media witch hunt is in full swing. Now that all the air has been let out of the balloons called Case 1,000 and Case 2,000, and now that it is clear that the balloon called Case 3,000 was never inflated to begin with, the media is doing all it can to inflate another balloon, Case 4,000. But this balloon will also deflate."

Cases 1,000 and 2,000 are ongoing corruption cases against Netanyahu, the first focusing on allegedly illicit gifts and the second on attempted media manipulation. Case 3,000, in which Netanyahu is not a suspect, focuses on suspected corruption in the Israeli purchase of German submarines.

Netanyahu has not been named as a suspect in Case 4,000. He is expected to be questioned by the Israel Police about possible irregularities in the regulations adopted in his capacity as communications minister between 2014 and 2017, and about his ties to Bezeq's controlling shareholder Shaul Elovitch.

Police revealed few details about the case and quickly slapped a gag order on it. But according to some media reports, police may be looking at a possible relationship between Bezeq, Shaul Elovitch and Netanyahu.

According to speculation, Netanyahu may have received favorable coverage from the Walla news site, a Bezeq subsidiary, in exchange for media regulation that earned Elovitch hundreds of millions of shekels. However, it is unclear whether Netanyahu or his associates were involved in this supposed scheme.

The seven people who were arrested Sunday, whose names are under gag orders, are five senior Bezeq executives, a senior government ministry official, and a communications adviser close to Netanyahu.

According to sources familiar with the investigation, the prime minister's wife, Sara, could also be quizzed because of her associations with the suspects.

In Netanyahu's statement on Sunday, he said the Justice Ministry "has already made it clear, in the state comptroller's report, that the prime minister never made controversial decisions [regarding Bezeq]. He made no decision that was specifically tailored to help Bezeq or any decision that could be controversial or considered a conflict of interest. Therefore, this is just a fake bubble that will burst as well."

The developments in Case 4,000 come days after police announced there was sufficient evidence to indict Netanyahu in both Case 1,000 and Case 2,000. The recommended charges are fraud and breach of trust (considered one offense under the penal code), as well as soliciting and accepting bribes.

In Case 1,000, Netanyahu is accused of receiving lavish gifts from Hollywood mogul Arnon Milchan and Australian billionaire James Packer. In return, police say Netanyahu operated on Milchan's behalf on U.S. visa matters, tried to promote legislation that would help ease his tax burden and connected him with an Indian businessman.

In the second case, Case 2,000, Netanyahu is accused of offering Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Arnon Mozes preferential treatment in exchange for more favorable coverage.

The post Netanyahu slams media 'witch hunt' after his associates are arrested appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Netanyahu called the police findings "biased and extreme, and riddled with holes like Swiss cheese."

Netanyahu reiterated his oft-stated assertion that "nothing will come of this," accused police of being on a witch hunt, and vowed to serve out his entire term.

Police announced on Tuesday that they had gathered sufficient evidence to indict Netanyahu in the two corruption probes known as Case 1,000 and Case 2,000.

In a case summary report submitted to Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit, the investigators said the evidence suggests that Netanyahu's conduct involved fraud and breach of trust (considered one offense under the penal code), as well as soliciting and accepting bribes.

Case 1,000 centers on gifts Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, are said to have received from Israeli businessman and film producer Arnon Milchan and Australian billionaire James Packer.

Case 2,000 focuses on an illicit deal Netanyahu allegedly tried to strike with Yedioth Ahronoth publisher Arnon Mozes under which Yedioth would soften its aggressive anti-Netanyahu stance in return for the prime minister working to pass legislation that would help Yedioth financially or use his influence to curtail Israel Hayom, Yedioth's rival.

In their report Tuesday, police investigators said Netanyahu had accepted gifts valued at 750,000 shekels ($210,000) from Milchan, and 250,000 shekels ($71,000) from Packer. The gifts from Milchan, whose credits include "Pretty Woman," ''12 Years a Slave" and "JFK," reportedly included expensive cigars and champagne. In return, Netanyahu allegedly operated on Milchan's behalf on U.S. visa matters, promoted a bill that would help reduce his tax burden, and connected him with an Indian businessman. Police said he also helped Milchan in the Israeli media market.

In the report on Case 2,000, investigators said Netanyahu and Mozes had held talks on a possible deal starting in 2009 and began meeting in person in 2014. According to the report, under the terms of the alleged deal, Mozes was asked to help Netanyahu consolidate power as prime minister by providing favorable coverage in his paper, Yedioth Ahronoth. In return, Netanyahu allegedly agreed to help the paper's financial well-being by curtailing its main competitor, the daily Israel Hayom, including by means of legislation. The police say the two took concrete steps towards implementing the deal, apparently contradicting Netanyahu's claim that he was only pretending to be negotiating with Mozes. Investigators say one of those steps was Netanyahu's effort to introduce certain provisions to the so-called anti-Israel Hayom bill in a way that would primarily benefit Yedioth Ahronoth, as well as his alleged attempt to persuade Israel Hayom's owners to reduce its distribution and discontinue its weekend supplement.

According to investigators, Milchan's conduct amounts to bribery, while Mozes' actions constitute attempted bribery.

Shortly after the police submitted their findings, Netanyahu delivered a combative speech in which he dismissed the accusations and said he had always acted based on Israel's national interests.

"I will continue to lead the state of Israel responsibly and loyally as long as you, the citizens of Israel, choose me to lead you," Netanyahu said in a televised address. "I am sure the truth will come to light. And I am sure that in the next election, which will take place as scheduled, I will win your trust again, with God's help."

In his TV address, Netanyahu said his entire three-decade political career, which included serving as Israel's ambassador to the U.N., a stint as prime minister in the 1990s and a series of cabinet posts, was meant only to serve the Israeli public.

He acknowledged aiding Milchan with his visa issues but said Milchan had done much for Israel and noted that the late former President Shimon Peres had also been close with Milchan.

He also said that over the years he had made decisions that hurt Milchan's business interests in Israel.

"Why would someone seriously think that in exchange for cigars I acted for Arnon Milchen's benefit?" he said. He said all the allegations over the years against him had one goal: "to topple me," and stressed that past scandals had all "ended with nothing" and "this time as well they will end with nothing."

The recommendations will now go to Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit, who will review the material before deciding whether to file charges. Even then, Netanyahu would still have a pre-indictment hearing before the case goes to trial. Netanyahu can remain in office during that process, which is expected to drag on for months. Under Israeli law, he can remain in power while on trial and in possibly even after he being convicted, depending on the specifics of the case and the severity of the sentence.

Channel 10 read a statement that it said came from Milchan's "defense team," saying the bribery charge would not stand. It said Milchan's relationship with Netanyahu goes back to the early 2000s, before he became prime minister, and that the men and their families were friends. There was no immediate comment from Packer or Mozes.

The post PM: Police report 'biased, full of holes,' nothing will come of bribery charges appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.