The Likud will go to its primaries one month after the attorney-general announced his decision to indict Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on counts of bribery, fraud and breach of trust.
By HERB KEINONFormer US president Richard Nixon, upon facing impeachment in the Watergate scandal, stepped down from his position in a final televised address to the public(photo credit: REUTERS)
Two months after the June 17, 1972 break-in at the Watergate complex in Washington – a bungled burglary that eventually led to the political downfall of President Richard Nixon – the Republican party held its national convention.Nixon won. No, Nixon trounced all his competition, as most incumbent presidents do in their own party conventions. He received 1,323 of the delegates’ votes, against one for Pete McCloskey, an anti-Vietnam War (and anti-Israel) candidate.But what if the delegates at the convention in Miami Beach had known about Nixon’s involvement in Watergate before the convention?What if they had known about G. Gordon Liddy, illegal wiretaps and Rose Mary Woods’ 18-minute gap in the White House tapes? Would that have mattered? Would it have made a difference? Would McCloskey have been the nominee, or perhaps Ohio’s John Ashbrook, who also put forward a Quixotic run in the primaries?Why is this question relevant? Because today the Likud will go to its primaries one month after the attorney-general announced his decision to indict Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on counts of bribery, fraud and breach of trust.If Cases 1000, 2000 and 4000 are Netanyahu’s Watergate in that this is the legal affair that may bring him down, then Thursday’s primary is akin to the Republicans holding their convention after all the revelations came out about Watergate.Love him or hate him, Netanyahu is a political phenomenon. Barring nothing less than a Hanukkah miracle for Gideon Sa’ar, Netanyahu is set to handily win the Likud primaries. And what makes him a phenomenon is that he will win despite the three cases for which he has been indicted. If he wins, it would be akin to Nixon being re-nominated after Watergate broke.Why? Don’t Likudniks and Netanyahu supporters know about the indictments? Don’t they care? Do they want someone corrupt to lead their party and the country?No, of course not. They know about the indictments, and they don’t want someone corrupt to lead their party – they just don’t trust the process, or believe the charges. Or, if they do believe the charges, they don’t think they are enough to remove a leader of Netanyahu’s caliber from office.
There are two main explanations for Netanyahu’s amazing political resilience, despite what he has been accused of.The first is that ever since the allegations first came to light some three years ago, he has been preparing the ground. Beyond saying consistently “there will be nothing, because there is nothing,” he has also been saying consistently that “they” are out to get him. The “they” being the media, the “Leftists,” the elites, the state prosecutor’s office.The country was not surprised earlier this year when the police recommended an indictment before the first round of elections, because the story had been around for so long already and Netanyahu prepared the public by saying there would be an indictment. So when the police recommend it, nobody fell off their chairs.The same is true of the attorney-general’s decision to indict in November. There was little surprise, little shock. Most expected it would happen, Netanyahu’s people were saying it was going to happen, so when it happened, the political earth did not quake – the public was already prepared for it.Netanyahu’s argument that the Left and the country’s media and “elites” are out to get him resonated, and continues to resonate with a large part of the public who believe that it is true. The indictment, in their eyes, is not proof that Netanyahu’s is corrupt, but rather proof that the Left will use any means to drive him from office.The second reason that Netanyahu remains popular with so many voters despite the indictments is that his alleged crimes are not seen in the eyes of many people as especially egregious.Bribery, in the public mind, is when dollar bills exchange hands in brown envelopes. But to accuse someone of a bribe for giving favors to the owner of a media outlet in order to get favorable coverage (Case 4000), that is more of a gray area. Many look at that and say, “all politicians seek to influence media moguls to get good coverage.”The same rationale exists regarding the allegations that Netanyahu took free cigars and champagne. Forget that he is accused of taking NIS 700,000 worth of free cigars and champagne (and jewelry), much of the public feels that this is something that “everybody does,” and that it is being used by Netanyahu’s opponents to bring him down because they can’t defeat him in an election.Another side of this argument is that even if the allegations are true, and even if Netanyahu did take champagne and cigars and went overboard in trying to secure good press, that’s not a reason to chuck out the window a leader of his international standing, who has done so much for the country.Interestingly enough, Sa’ar – in his primary campaign – did not run on the theme of “Netanyahu is corrupt,” but rather on the theme of “Netanyahu cannot form a government.”Why? Because Sa’ar knows his party well, and he knows that even many of those who vote for him, believe that Left and the elites are simply gunning for Netanyahu. He knows that is definitely not a winning ticket.
