Before dealing with the cigars and wine that the billionaire Melchan presented to the Netanyahu spouses, let’s look at the money that other famous Israeli politicians received from their “sponsors”. Let’s consider them in order.
“Police called Yair Lapid “a key witness” in case 1000 – the “cigar case ”, in which, according to suspects, gifts from the magnates were handed over to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who allegedly defended their interests in exchange. This contradicts the new evidence received in the Harel Segal program.
Program editor Itamar Fleishmann said on the air that in 2011 Meir Doron and Joe Gelman wrote the book “Secrets about the life story of tycoon Arnon Melchan” … At that time, the authors wrote in the advertising blog of the book that Yair Lapid received “financial and other assistance from Melchan” as defined, to finance his political activities.”
“Lieberman was suspected that foreign oligarchs transferred millions of dollars to the accounts of companies controlled by him; the shell companies were led by Lieberman’s daughter, a loyal personal driver, a poet from the Nokdim settlement, and a diamond business buddy in Belgium. ”
“One of the firms that appeared on the case was the Mayflower, registered in the Virgin Islands. This company made financial transactions for tens of millions of shekels. The formal owners of the company were former Lieberman driver Igor Schneider, who, according to Alef, during the investigation showed a complete lack of understanding of what the company “belonging to” does.
No one doubted that we were talking about a figurehead, a puppet. But whose puppet? In order to reject the only reasonable option, according to which Lieberman was an omnipotent boss in all the companies that his driver allegedly owned, (legal adviser) Weinstein develops in his final conclusion the thesis that in fact the companies were run by a Belgian merchant who passed away diamonds named Yosef Schuldiner, who acquired a company formerly owned by Lieberman. ”
“Liberman’s lawyers themselves have never claimed this …”
“Cyprus lawyer Danielle Moracci was considered a key witness in this case. Working in a prestigious law office in Limassol, she was engaged in the fact that, according to suspicions, it was an extensive system of offshore companies controlled by Liberman. Moracci met with Lieberman several times – and then when he held public office. It was about meetings dedicated to the fate of these companies. She obeyed the instructions of the Israeli lawyer of Lieberman, who demanded that she not mention the name of the client in the documents sent to Israel. According to Moracchi, she understood that this is due to the fact that the client holds the highest public posts in Israel.”
… These huge sums came to the Cypriot accounts from two close friends of Lieberman – the Austrian billionaire Martin Schlaff and the oligarch Mikhail Chernoy.”
“(Legal adviser) Weinstein took an approach in this matter that is more likely to be characteristic of a defense that represents Lieberman’s interests. … Examined exclusively holes in the network of evidence – while the network itself was completely ignored.”
“State Comptroller: Shimon Peres is suspected of committing a crime
Yediot Aharonot reports that the investigation of the State Comptroller revealed suspicions of Shimon Peres in connection with donations to the primaries of Avoda party, which he lost to Amir Peretz. The audit report will be published in a few weeks, the question was referred to the legal adviser Mazuz.”
“Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has been found guilty of violating public confidence and illegally gaining profits. The verdict in the so-called “Talansky case” was issued on Monday by the Jerusalem District Court.”
“… The former Israeli Prime Minister’s campaign strategist released an audio recording that could confirm that Sharon lied when he said he was unaware of illegal contributions to the campaign.
The investigation focuses on a number of shell companies created in 1999 to launder illegal foreign funds for Sharon’s Likud leadership campaign, which served as a springboard for the prime minister.
The 2001 report of the Comptroller of the State pointed to suspicions of criminal behavior on the part of the Prime Minister, his sons and chief political assistants, including his chief of staff, Dov Vaysglas.”
…”A few months later, the fraud police department told the Israeli press it is ready to indict the eldest son of Sharon Omri …”
“The Tel Aviv District Court sent the prime minister’s son to nine months in prison and sentenced him to nine months probation and a fine of 300,000 shekels. (Omri) Sharon pleaded guilty to violating the law on party financing and perjury. The judge sharply criticized Omri: “Is everything kosher in the name of the father?”, But he took into account the situation of the prime minister and ruled to postpone the execution of the sentence.”
“In 1999, the United Israel list was created, led by Ehud Barak, ahead of the fifteenth Knesset and the election of the Prime Minister … To finance his personal election campaign, Prime Minister Ehud Barak used a number of “partnerships” to raise funds. Some of these non-profit organizations were created shortly before the election date and operated for a short period of time, while other partnerships existed earlier and were brought in for the campaign. These non-profit organizations were funded by donations from foreign foundations and private individuals and took an active part in the campaign.”
“A press investigation led to the investigation of public prosecutor Edna Arbel and her team, which revealed the possibility that Weizmann violated Israeli tax laws, the Public Service Act (Gifts), and the Party Financing Act (1973).
“Weizmann, as stated, decided not to resign and not go on vacation during an investigation against him, but stopped taking the oath from the new judges, contrary to custom.”
“Transfers of funds
It turned out from the investigation that between 1988 and 1993, President Weizmann received about $ 453,000 from the Jewish millionaire Edward Serussi. The funds were transferred to Weizmann’s account and to the accounts of his wife Rauma Weizman, his daughter Michal Jaffe and her husband Dov Jaffe. At that time, Ezer Weizmann served as Minister of Science in the Shamir government.
Weizmann used his lawyer, Hanin Brandes, to manage this money through a trust account at the Bank of Tel Aviv, which was opened in 1987 under the name “Naschitz Brands & Co. Advocacy – Trust. ” This account was financed from abroad, the money was transferred to the personal accounts of Ezer Weizmann and used for personal needs.”
FUAD BEN ELIEZER
“After Fuad recognized its (safe) existence, investigators discovered $ 570,000 in the Benjamin (Fuad) ben Eliezer (Avoda) safe. The trial of Ben Eliezer, accused of receiving bribes from business owners in huge amounts, will begin next week.”
Now is the time to analyze this phenomenon, the connection of politicians with the owners of big money.
The natural question is: if the rich do not give out gifts “for beautiful eyes,” then what do they expect from the politicians to whom they have provided patronage? What is their benefit?
The first thing that comes to mind: they are waiting for response services, such as tax exemptions, profitable contracts, etc. etc. Yes, some politicians can indeed provide “response services”. For example, use his signature right as a minister, mayor, deputy, or other position. In this, politicians differ little from “ordinary” officials. And yet a politician is not an ordinary official.
Yes, but do you need pathetic concessions from Israeli ministers to American, Russian, and European billionaires, people like Martin Schlaff, Talansky, and others? If they ask for privileges from Israeli politicians, then not to get miserable unnecessary shekels, but to keep these politicians on a short leash, to blackmail them in violation of the law and to get the necessary political decisions from the Israelis.
Having achieved success, prominent politicians decide our fate, the fate of the state and people. And here the old petty sins of politicians suddenly begin to have a disproportionately large influence on the fateful decisions.
Let us analyze how the judicial “cases” of prominent Israeli politicians influenced our fate.
Ariel Sharon has been a fighter for a just cause for most of his life. He was directly involved in all the wars of Israel as a soldier, officer and general. He showed personal heroism and made bold decisions as a commander. Having become a politician, he positioned himself on the right flank of the right-wing Likud party. He was one of the initiators of the campaign in Beirut. Having climbed the Temple Mount, he gave Arafat a pretext to unleash Intifada. He defeated Netanyahu and Olmert inside Likud, and then defeated Ehud Barak (Avoda), who also positioned himself as the defender of the fatherland.
Having become Prime Minister, for the first time in ten years of the Oslo process, he regained control of the IDF over Palestine and managed to stop the massive attacks of Palestinian terrorist organizations on Israeli civilians.
And then he began to implement the plan of the “ultra-left” Yosi Beilin, known under the name “Disengagement”. The result is known: the Palestinians and all who support them have strengthened their intention to destroy the Jewish state.
Sharon announced the Disengagement Plan in December 2003.
“On the other hand, a criminal investigation was opened against Ariel Sharon and his two sons, Omri and Gilad, for illegally collected contributions for one of the election campaigns of A. Sharon, and the so-called case of the “Greek island”.
As we saw above, investigations against Sharon began in 2001. One cannot but notice the “coincidence” between these investigations and the sharp change in the political course of Ariel Sharon. As a result, the prime minister suffered a stroke, from which he did not recover. However, Sharon escaped the fate that befell Rabin. His lot was oblivion …
Another example of the unexpected “shift” of the far-right politician is Ezer Weizmann, a former military pilot, and then one of the Likud’s “hawks”. It turned out that Weizmann became “leftist” right after he received large sums from an overseas rich man, see above.
Ehud Olmert was also one of the most right-wing leaders of Likud. After Netanyahu resigned (1999), he competed against Ariel Sharon, trying to take the post of leader of this party. However, then Olmert unexpectedly “became weary”, joined Sharon, transferred to his party Kadima, and continued the process of “Disengagement” after Sharon fell into a coma.
In the negotiations, which Olmert resumed after the “Disengagement”, he made far-reaching concessions. It turned out, however, that the Palestinians did not want peace on any terms. Olmert’s “disengagement” and pliability fueled their appetites, reinforced Palestinian hope of destroying Israel, and as a result, they refused to sign a peace treaty.
Now we know that since 1993, Olmert has been promoting his career, using the financial assistance of the American-Jewish “philanthropist” Talansky:
“Maurice Talansky is a member of the US Democratic Party. He raised money for President Bill Clinton in 1995, for Speaker Thomas Foley in 1994 and for Senator Edward Kennedy in 1992. “
Ehud Barak, a former General Staff intelligence paratrooper, was considered the “hawk” of Avoda. He defeated Shimon Peres in the party’s internal elections, criticizing Oslo’s father for excessive concessions to the Palestinians and posing as an advocate of Israeli security. He then defeated Benjamin Netanyahu (1999), also criticizing Bibi for “concessions” in security matters.
After gaining power, Barak hastily removed the IDF from the security zone in southern Lebanon, which led to increased Hezbollah and Iranian aggression against Israel.
Barak tried to make peace with the Palestinians by making far-reaching concessions but failed. Arafat acted according to Hitler’s method in Czechoslovakia: after Barak’s concessions, he put forward new far-reaching demands. Barak had to state that a treaty was impossible. Today, there is no doubt that Arafat deliberately disrupted negotiations with Ehud Barak, since he planned Intifada.
Barak’s unexpected pliability after 1999 was clearly related to the investigation of his “partnerships”: “These non-profit organizations were funded by donations from foreign foundations and private individuals and took an active part in the campaign.” It was this money that helped Barak defeat Benjamin Netanyahu in 1999.
It is interesting that the “transformation” of Lieberman, whom the left accused of racism, into an ally of the Arabs and the enemy of Netanyahu, happened precisely after the previous legal adviser Weinstein “cleared” him of the heaviest accusations. If the case was referred to the court, Lieberman’s career and money would have come to an end.
It seems that the billions held by Liberman’s patrons have become a stronger argument than the law and interests of the state of Israel. It is also interesting that before becoming a legal adviser to the government, the lawyer Weinstein represented a number of politicians in the courts: “Among Weinstein’s clients were Benjamin Netanyahu, Arie Deri, Ezer Weizman, Ehud Olmert and other representatives of the Israeli political elite … Weinstein handed over to the Minister of Justice a list of all his high-ranking clients in order to avoid accusations of conflict of interest . ” https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/
It seems that Weinstein forgot to include some billionaires in this list, for example, Deripaska, whom he represented in a lawsuit against the billionaire Chernoy.
Here I must explain why the definition “the Left” I quote.
Forty years ago, it was generally accepted that leftists are those who undertook to defend the working class or the social rights of the oppressed. How “those” leftists really fulfilled their slogans is a separate issue, but the term “left” had a social meaning.
Since then, radical changes have occurred in the world of ideas. The term “left” completely lost its original social meaning. Social slogans were adopted by nationalists, rightists, global billionaires like Soros, or none at all. Today, throughout the world, “left” means “enemy of Israel” and, accordingly, “friend of Palestine”. This substitution of concepts corresponds quite accurately to the manipulation that Hitler performed a hundred years ago: instead of a social revolution, he put forward “national socialism” coupled with anti-Semitism.
The transformation of the global “left” has dealt a mortal blow to the Israeli “social left.” The former party of power, Avoda, degraded and received only three mandates in 2020, despite the fact that its leader Amir Peretz tried to revive the long-forgotten social slogans of this former party of the working class.
Today in Israel, the meaning of the term “left” (as in the rest of the world) is determined by the attitude of the politician towards Palestine and Israel. In Israel, the “leftist” is one who, in favor of Palestine, seeks to destroy the Jewish state and expose the people of Israel to the danger of genocide.
As a fact, the “socially left” Amir Peretz, in contrast to Lapid and Lieberman, switched to Netanyahu’s side. The watershed does not pass between the “social left” and the rightwing Netanyahu, but between Bibi Netanyahu and the corrupt Israeli politicians with their bosses Melchan and Martin Schlaff.
And now let’s back to the cigarettes and champagne that Melchan gave Bibi and Sarah. How did this happen?
First, in 2008, Ehud Olmert initiated a law that abolished taxation of the wealthy “olim” and the so-called “returning residents,” that is, Israeli citizens who emigrated, made money abroad and then decided to return home, to Israel. This law was called the “Melchan Law” because this billionaire was the first to use it. Melchan returned to Israel in October 2009, a year after the adoption of the law and six months after Netanyahu replaced Olmert as prime minister.
The law itself was reasonable; it eliminated double taxation. After all, people, who have worked for many years in other states and made capital there have already paid considerable taxes. It is unfair to demand from them again to pay the tax on the money they earned in other states for the right to live in their homeland.
The problem was not in the law, but the way Arnon Melchan took advantage of it:
“Melchan is known for his political activity and closeness to the country’s leaders, and even acted as an intermediary in attempts to create a unity government between Tzipi Livni and Benjamin Netanyahu in 2009 and Yitzhak Herzog and Binyamin Netanyahu in May 2016.     Negotiations on the creation of a unity government were based on the resumption of a regional political process based on the principle of “two states for two peoples.” Negotiations to create a unity government and initiate a political process were unsuccessful, and Avigdor Lieberman was appointed Minister of Defense. . “
It turns out that Melchan used his billions to push us again on the path of Oslo, Intifada, and Disengagement, rejected by the people of Israel after a quarter-century of the ordeal. The question arises, does Melchan is serving the people of Israel or certain forces in the United States? It seems that he took on the role of their Trojan horse.
Arnon Melchan climbed into the boots of Nuni Moses, who openly boasted in the 90s that he was “appointing and overthrowing the prime ministers of Israel.” Maybe we better return him to America?
The main obstacle to Melchan’s plans was just his “friend” Benjamin Netanyahu. Bibi refused to follow Melchan’s instructions; he didn’t take either Tzipi Livni or the leader of Avoda Yitzhak Herzog (the one who organized the “partnerships” of Ehud Barak) into the coalition. Why? Because he did not want the resumption of the murderous “peace process” of the liquidation of the Jewish state.
Netanyahu also did not yield to the pressure of Barack Obama and his envoy John Kerry. He waited for Trump’s victory and established a good relationship with this US president. He tried not to spoil relations with Putin, as the brewing war with Russia could have disastrous consequences for our people. In short, Bibi defended us, the people of Israel, and paid for his role.
To create a counterweight to Netanyahu, Melchan tows Yair Lapid, the former favorite of Nuni Moses. It began in 2011 when Lapid received from Melchan a serious amount for “political activity.”
In 2013, the newly created Lapid’s Yesh Atid party immediately received 19 mandates and entered the government. After the next election (2015), Lapid’s influence fell to 11 seats, and instead of Yesh Atid Netanyahu took religious parties into the coalition.
Since Bibi could not be moved from his political position, and he won the election, Lapid launched in 2017 a campaign to overthrow Netanyahu in a non-democratic way, using false accusations, the police, prosecutors and courts (most likely on behalf of his two bosses, Moses and Melchan).
The decision of legal adviser Mandelblit on Netanyahu’s affairs was no less scandalous than the decision of his predecessor Weinstein in the Lieberman case:
“The police investigation concluded that there was evidence of Melchan’s bribe. But the attorney general decided to close the case against him, and Netanyahu brought to justice.”
No less surprising was Mandelblit’s attitude to Lapid’s testimony in the same case. Melchan and Lapid clearly violated the law on party financing. Instead of demanding a police investigation into the Melchan – Lapid case, Mandelblit accepted their knowingly false testimonies in case 1000 as reliable.
How can one trust the testimonies of witnesses who openly admitted that their goal was to remove Netanyahu, that was elected by the majority of the people, from his post? As a lawyer, Mandelblit was obliged to reject Melchan’s allegations that Netanyahu “forced” him to give him presents.
I wonder how Netanyahu could force the billionaire who “dig” under him to give himself gifts? And why the police did not believe this strange version of Melchan, and recommended to bring him to justice? Did Mandelblit know something that the police did not know?
As the analysis above shows, it was Bibi who did not dare to reject the “friendship” and gifts that “the maker of prime ministers of Israel” offered him.
I think that Melchan, who financed Netanyahu’s rivals, gave Bibi gifts in order to be able to blackmail him. Just like the foreign predecessors of Melchan did: they financed Ezer Weizmann, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, Shimon Peres, and some others whose “affairs” did not emerge because they did not become prime ministers.
The decision of the legal adviser Melchan against Netanyahu is nothing more than a scandalous challenge to law and logic. In the end, this is not a trial, but an investigation. Regarding Melchan, Mandelblit decided instead of court, to which he does not have authority. He dares to convict the one who allegedly received the bribe and to release from liability the one who gave the same bribe, and was clearly interested in giving it!
I don’t know what influenced this scandalous decision of Mandelblit: his political views, alleged connections with Beni Ganz or billions of Melchan. In any case, after such a decision, legal adviser Mandelblit is required to resign. Perhaps, an investigation should be launched against him on suspicion of receiving a bribe.
Despite the storm of corruption allegations, and contrary to the outrageous decision of the legal adviser, two-thirds of Israeli Jewish voters voted three times for Bibi. Most Israelis, including the “Russians,” did not believe the accusations of Lapid, the police, legal adviser Mandelblit, and did not believe Lieberman, who had turned from Netanyahu’s ally into his enemy.
Netanyahu rightly did not resign even after the trial against him began. Until the court decides, the accused is presumed innocent. There has already been a case in the history of Israel when Minister Jacob Neeman hastily resigned after the investigation began against him:
“In June 1996, he was appointed Minister of Justice in the first government of Benjamin Netanyahu. On the same day, Israeli journalist Yoav Yitzhak filed a lawsuit against this appointment. The next day, government legal adviser Michael Ben Yair ordered a police inspection of the Neeman case. On August 8, 1996, the police began an investigation on the suspicion of Yaakov Neeman of perjury, on the same day he resigned. In May 1997, the court dropped all charges against Neeman.”
“The French law”, which postpones the investigation against the French president until the end of his term in office, would helpful in Israel, but it should also introduce a limitation on the length of service of the head of government, and for this we need to introduce a presidential system … So, be patient, let Bibi to continue his important work, while the court will be able to patiently study the pile of “cases” of Netanyahu. It will take more than one year. The main thing that I expect from the judges is not to believe the testimonies of the interested people, Lapid and Melchan.
In general, politicians behave like artists. To start and pursue a career, they really need a Maecenas with money. Let’s recall Barack Obama, that had no money to start his carrier. Money for political advertising, for hospitality expenses, on assistants and advisers … In the end, for life, for himself and the family.
In the end, a politician turns a brand, a company that requires costs, but receives very little income, or suffers losses in case of losing the election.
This “suspended” state of non-rich politicians misuse the owners of big money, both Israeli and overseas and European, and in recent years also Russian and Ukrainian Tycoons. They finance cheap Israeli politicians who, as a result, are forced to serve not voters, but their money “patrons.”
To avoid the very negative result of this phenomenon, which in the worst case, which Israel is in, could lead to the destruction of the state, a law on party financing has long been passed.
Unfortunately, this law is outdated, which has become an incentive for numerous violations, some of which are listed at the beginning of the article. In addition, politicians often confuse donations “for politics” with their own pockets.
In order to fix the situation on the part of the legislation, we simply have to admit what actually exists, namely: popular politicians are a brand. They should be entitled to open a business under this brand. Which business, or what types of firms?
Firstly, “a partnership without profit objectives.” From the money of such a “partnership” (amusement), the politician will be able to cover his expenses for advertising, hospitality, travel for work, etc. The partnership is required by law to transfer annually a financial report and a report on the work done.
Before the election, the Central Election Commission will check the annual report of a partnership and give permission to participate in the elections. Or not give, if the politician has violated the terms of the partnership. For example, donations from abroad should not exceed 30% of the total amount of donations. A politician should not serve the citizens of other states, otherwise, he becomes a lobbyist and should not occupy elected posts.
If a politician reaches a high degree of popularity, he will be able to formalize his company as “authorized” and receive legitimate income from it in his own pocket. Of course, at the same time, he will have to pay a value-added tax, from which the costs of “politics” should be deducted.
If a “friend” of a politician wants to give him a personal gift, the value of this gift should be included in his company’s report.
Well, the parties will be able to open a “limited liability company.” In the event of the election defeat, such a party will not be obliged to repay debts. Those who want to influence politics must risk their money.
But most importantly, the politician will have to publish the names of the donors yet before the election. When everything is done legally and openly, donations cannot become a means of blackmail. Politicians will no longer be held hostage by their sponsors.