By Israel Shamir
Prime Minister Olmert threw his towel in and
gave up struggle. A powerful coalition of law and media brought him
down. The Jewish state enters a new era of rule by sages, not
necessarily a better one, writes Israel Shamir.
By Israel Shamir
Who Brought Olmert Down (and Why)
You would not envy the position of Israeli Prime
Minister, Ehud Olmert. He did not have a snowball’s chance in hell.
Every day the newspapers and the TV channels broadcast new accusations
against him and announced fresh police investigations. Often the Israeli
viewer learned of Olmert’s alleged misdeeds before the Prime Minister
himself did. Police did not just leak the details of the case –
they poured it out like tropical torrent. Charges landed all over Olmert
bomblets he dropped on hapless Lebanon: small but plentiful.
The charges were petty, at best. They are summed up
You and I have probably done similar things. Olmert was accused of
charging two different organizations for the same expenses, of accepting
some contributions in cash, of flying with his family to a trip abroad
while not strictly observing the difference between his funds and those
of contributors. Probably the Biblical injunction “Don’t muzzle the ox
while he is threshing” (Deut 25:4) covers the case. But the police went
after him, the Supreme Court began deliberations on private actions
against Olmert, while newspapers and the TV blew it out of proportion.
Thus two mighty powers of Israeli politics, the media and the legal
system, united in one effort to unseat Olmert, and he caved in.
This episode may demonstrate who actually runs
Israel. Though media amplifies, the judges judge. The Hidden Hand that
unseated Olmert was that of the Supreme Court and its power-hungry
President, Chief Justice Dorit Beinish. Beinish and her bosom friend
Justice Arbel activated police and prosecution, while their special
storm-troops, the fighting sorority of lesbian activists straight out of
Barb Wire organised mass demonstration and intimidated the
opposition. The reasons had nothing to do with Olmert’s alleged
corruption or with his real failure in the 2006 Lebanon War, but were
grounded in the power struggle between the weak elected government and
the unassailable judges. Moreover, Olmert makes the third recent,
high-placed victim of the Supreme Court’s drive to supreme power.
The Supreme Court of Israel is self-elected and
self-perpetuated, like the
Sanhedrin of old.
Formally, the new judges are appointed by the President, who
confirms the decisions of a committee led by the Justice Minister <http://elyon1.court.gov.il/eng/system/index.html>
; factually the sages elect the new sages from amongst their apprentices
(“interim appointees”) and close colleagues. This system is called in
Hebrew ‘haver mevi haver’, ‘a friend brings a friend’. After
twenty years of the system’s strict application, the Supreme Court is a
monolithic and highly influential body.
The Court is closely and personally connected with
other legal authorities, with the attorney general office, the state
prosecutor office, the police and the secret police. State prosecutors
and attorney generals dream of joining the Court after leaving their
jobs. Police bosses take the Court orders as if they were sent down from
heaven. The Court is the top of the legal pyramid, and its president can
manoeuvre and manipulate the whole system formally and informally. Under
the flag of judicial activism, the Supreme Court has assumed control of
the state, leaving Parliament and the existing government high and dry.
The judges have assumed powers any dictator would envy: they can nullify
any law; they can prosecute any MP or minister, they can block any
government action or agreement. They rule whether the state has to build
shelters for border towns, whether an army commander made a right
tactical decision, whether a law can remain on the books and whether
prisoners may be swapped.
Incidentally, these powers have no legal basis. The
American professor of law Richard Posner noted that the Israeli judges
abrogated these powers to themselves “without benefit of a
constitutional or legislative provision. One is reminded of Napoleon's
taking the crown out of the pope's hands and putting it on his own
The man who took the crown of Israel and placed on
his head was not Arik Sharon. It was the previous Chief Justice Aharon
Barak, the most powerful man of Israeli politics. Posner called Barak
“Enlightened despot … who created a degree of judicial power undreamed
of even by the most aggressive [American] Supreme Court justices”. After
he retired, sycophantic slime spewed forth from printed and electronic
media alike. Barak had had to retire having reached the mandatory age,
but he remained very much a moving force behind the scenes.
His succession by the highly ambitious Dorit Beinish
brought the conflict between the Judicial and Executive branches to the
fore. A tug-of-war ensued, with the government trying to cut the Supreme
Court down to its natural size, and with the Supreme Court fighting for
the top slot. Both sides wished to keep the struggle under the carpet,
far away from the eyes of hoi polloi.
The wars of succession were concentrated around the
Judges’ Nominations Committee, which is chaired by the Minister of
Justice who is appointed by the prime minister, while the actual
appointment of judges is done by the Israel’s president. Surely this was
sheer coincidence that all three of these persons were politically
In 2006, Minister of Justice Haim Ramon objected to
the nomination of Dorit Beinish to the top post of chief justice. He
also planned to break with the unwritten tradition of appointing to the
Supreme Court only those interim candidates who had been invited there
by the Supreme Court to serve on a temporary basis, and instead to bring
in an outsider, a lawyer or a judge not vetted by Beinish.
Ramon was treading on a live wire, and the response
was fierce. Within a month, Ramon was under investigation for sexual
harassment; in July 2006 he was forbidden to appoint judges, and in
January 2007 he was convicted.
The story went as follows. A soldier girl came to
visit the Justice Minister Ramon; she looked at him with adoring eyes
and asked to be photographed with him. Eventually Ramon kissed the girl
who later claimed she had expected a kiss, but rather a fatherly and
less fervent kiss than the one she got. The girl went away, expressed
her dissatisfaction with the French kiss, and flew away to Latin
America. A senior police officer flew to Latin America, located the girl
and literally forced her to file a criminal complaint. The police woman
in charge of the investigation admitted at the hearing that she had
threatened the girl with prosecution unless she stuck to her complaint.
The newspapers and TV discussed the details of the
case but practically nobody (but a few bloggers) dared to ask who had
ordered Ramon’s head. It took
an American Jewish journalist to break with the vow of silence and
connect this “targeted judicial assassination” with the struggle for
Court primacy. Halpern wrote in the Forward: “Many suggest that
the judges and the attorney general had it in for Ramon because he
opposed the appointment of Judge Dorit Beinish as chief justice of the
Supreme Court. His trial prevented him from appointing someone else,
while his conviction prevented him from making changes to the judicial
system later. “
Meanwhile, the President of Israel, Moshe Katsav, the
man who actually appoints judges, came under fire. He was also against
Beinish’s rise to Fuhrership, and paid for it dearly.
A girl in his office codenamed “A” complained of
sexual harassment. It appeared in the course of investigation, that she
was lying. She had actually carried an affair with the President and had
tried to blackmail him. Her lies were so obvious that the prosecution
had to drop her, but meanwhile, the media had a field day, or rather a
field month. The media harassment sparked many complainants; apparently
every woman who ever worked with Katsav came forward to try her luck,
and a few of the accusations could possibly stick. There were daily
demonstrations by the angry feminists, the fighting sorority of Beinish
and Arbel, demanding Katsav’s balls, or at least his resignation. In
August 2006, he was
forbidden to appoint judges, just a few days after Ramon's
resignation. If that was not enough, on September 7, 2006 the Israeli
Police declared they have the evidentiary basis for an indictment.
On that day, the Judges' Election Committee approved
the succession of Dorit Beinisch to the presidency of the Supreme Court.
Katsav refrained from attending, "to prevent dispute". He also stayed
away from Beinisch's formal swearing-in ceremony, normally held in the
presidential compound, now to be held in the Knesset, so she was
sworn-in by another woman, the Knesset speaker.
Katsav agreed to be charged with indecent behaviour,
then later changed his mind, but still had to resign and vacate the
position to Shimon Peres, a smooth man very much to Beinish’ liking.
Olmert understood that not only his own career, but
the very position of the legitimate government was being undermined. He
harboured these heretical thoughts for a long time. In 2002, the
fighting sorority attacked another male Oriental politician, Minister of
Internal Security Avigdor Kahalani. Edna Arbel, then state prosecutor,
indicted him and brought him to trial, but he was acquitted. Ehud
Olmert, then mayor of Jerusalem, called upon Arbel to resign and said
that she lacked the professional judgment to continue in her senior
position. State Attorney General Elyakim Rubinstein defended Arbel in
his response to Olmert’s comments. Since then, Rubinstein has been
rewarded with a seat in the Court, while Olmert has gained an enemy not
to be trifled with.
Olmert went on the warpath by returning Ramon to his
cabinet in a senior position (though not to the post of Justice
Minister) and by hiring a new justice minister, Professor Daniel
Friedmann, the very man who was most vocal in his objection to the rule
by the Supreme Court. Friedmann made a two-pronged attack, by bringing
into the Supreme Court the first external nominee and by proposing to
limit the Supreme Court agenda by a law that would restrict the Supreme
Court from ruling on political, security and budget matters. He was
attacked by the retired justices of the Supreme Court, especially by
the former president of the Supreme Court Aharon Barak and his ex-deputy
Mishael Cheshin, the very men who had established the present system,
enthroned Dorit Beinish and kept advising her. While acting judges are
precluded from speaking ex-cathedra, it is a moot point with the
retired ones: they bear the title of Justice and they draw their Judge’s
pension, but they certainly speak out all the time. They went to the
Knesset, to newspapers and to TV channels and described Friedmann’s
actions as a “putsch”.
They pled with Olmert to fire Friedmann and let the
things go as usual. But Olmert wanted to return executive power to the
government, to the elected legitimate body from the self-appointed
usurpers. He stuck to his guns. Ehud Barak, the Labour leader and a
minister in Olmert’s government,
threatened Olmert with his resignation and the possible fall of
government unless he fired Friedmann; but the unrelenting Olmert refused
to bend and said he’d rather let Barak go than part with Friedmann.
And then they attacked Olmert personally. They found
an American Jew Morris Talansky who claimed he had squeezed crumpled
dollar notes into Olmert’s sweaty palm. In the course of interrogation
it appeared that the man used to boast that he gave money to every
Israeli PM, including Yitzhak Rabin, the very paragon of honesty. He had
also threatened to bomb some Rabbis who did not want to pay him. The
trustworthiness of his claims was severely undermined. But Olmert’s
enemies did not stop: every day they produced a new complainant, a new
accusation of corruption. If it was parried, they made a new one. With
the police and the Attorney General at their disposal, their resources
were practically unlimited.
Meanwhile, the retired justices were outspoken. They
demanded Olmert’s resignation, completely forgetting the “innocent until
found guilty” rule; just as they had in the related cases of Katsav and
Ramon. Dalia Dorner, a retired justice,
declared: “Olmert must resign. The public opinion should force him
to resign.” But public opinion remained unconvinced despite the
relentless spin, and Dorner bewailed Israeli simplicity of mind: “There
is no public culture of politics in Israel, and people pay no attention
to reports about misbehaving leaders”.
In the end, Olmert resigned to the supreme force of
the Supreme Court. Was this a victory of Law over arbitrary and corrupt
politicians? Do not be so sure.
Law or Democracy?
One may like or dislike Ehud Olmert, but he was
elected by the people to do his job. We elected Olmert. One may be happy
or unhappy about this result, but one should respect the decision of the
majority. We did elect Olmert, Katsav and Ramon, and we did not elect
Mrs Beinish and her fighting sorority, though she thinks she knows what
we need better than we do. In a democracy, one should respect the
people’s decision. A prime minister should rule the country, a hard
enough job, instead of spending his time answering questions by the
Olmert has been neutralised as prime minister,
because nobody is yet able to survive a media cum judiciary
assault. Apparently, Israel may need a
Berlusconi Law protecting its executive from police investigations
and legal actions. Police investigation about whether Ehud Olmert took
his wife along at government expense can wait until he completes his
tour of duty.
But the problem lies deeper; the choice is whether we
want democracy, or the rule of law. These two regimes are not identical,
- they stand in direct opposition. In a democracy, the people rule via
their elected representatives; under the rule of law, the sages (or
Judges) rule supreme. Now Israeli democracy faces a serious challenge,
more serious than
Altalena crisis: unless we stop the police and the Court from
meddling in politics, democracy will be lost.
A short detour is required. Of old, there were three
branches of government, or ‘powers’: the Legislative, the Executive and
the Judicial, as described by Montesquieu and as established by the US
constitution in the 18th century. The 20th century
ushered in a fourth power, Media.
The Legislative, in our case, the Knesset, is a
democratic body, despite its limitations. The Executive is also elected
- by the Knesset and is responsible to the Knesset.
But the Judicial power, i.e. the Court is not
elected. It is a self-appointed and self-perpetuating oligarchy equipped
with a vast apparatus which intervenes in matters of war and peace,
labour, education, family life and even in questions of faith. This is,
let us put it charitably, a Platonic rule by Sages. Yes there is the
Law, but they interpret it as they see fit. They may nullify a law, or
reinterpret it in an entirely different vein. Jewish history had a go at
it, too, when the sages of Talmud reinterpreted the Written Law. The
Rule of Halacha was actually rule by sages, and only the Enlightenment
broke its iron grip. Now we have reverted all the way back to the
Sanhedrin, this traditional (for Jews) but not very successful,
non-democratic system of rule by Wise Elders.
This was noticed by the American law professor Robert
Bork, who wrote: “[Aharon Barak’s rule of law… is in fact … the rule of
judges, a trend to which he himself is the major contributor. Perhaps [Barak]
believes that judges are simply intellectually and morally superior to
other actors in the nation’s politics”.
The supporters of the Supreme Court supremacy deride
the Ultra-Orthodox Jewry of Mea Shearim who accept rule by their
sages, but they themselves actually want to return us all to the rule by
sages, albeit sages of their own choosing. Karl Popper correctly stated
that this is just another form of totalitarianism. In our case - liberal
Some simple-minded people consider these judges to be
“of the left”. A pro-family right-wing activist and blogger, while
correctly noting the anti-family tendency of the Court, called them
The Wicked Witches of the Left. One may agree or disagree with “the
wicked witches”, but they certainly have nothing to do with the Left,
and this blogger should have his eyesight checked. The Supreme Court
sages, after twenty years of inbreeding and selection, belong to an
almost pure strain of totalitarian liberals, and they indeed enforce
liberalism in the worst meaning of the word:
workers’ rights are frowned upon as an affront to humanity. Majority
of Israeli workers are now employed by subcontractors on contract
basis, thus eliminating benefits and social security.
They approved of shifting the tax burden to the worker, while
usurers pay no tax.
They do not protect tenants against rent rise and allow landlords to
collect rent tax-free.
They are against children. That’s why abortions and gay marriages
are welcomed; gay pride parades are approved, but life of families
with children is getting increasingly difficult.
Even their favourite topic, gender equality, does not lead to a more
equal society but rather encourages young girls to join the
counter-insurgency fighting units.
They authorise torture, the kidnapping of civilians, the demolition
of Palestinian homes, the confiscation of their land, and the
building of settlements.
They accept the Secret Services version of everything, sight unseen.
They participate in the Assassination Committee, or the committee
for “extra-legal executions”.
They support the illegal Wall.
They had no problem trying and imprisoning illegally kidnapped
civilians, from Mordecai Vanunu to Marwan Barghouti.
They undermine religion because they hate anything smacking of
If that is “Left”, then what is Right? But let us be
fair, they are not Right neither Left, they are the Third Kind,
totalitarian liberals. Totalitarian liberals are profoundly
undemocratic, for they are forever suspicious of the Majority. They use
the Minority Rights in order to undermine Majority Rule. They do not act
in the interests of the minorities whose name they bear in vain: rather,
they use them as a ploy for seizing supreme power. Their world-view is
essentially that of
Leo Strauss, the godfather of neo-cons, “a man profoundly hostile to
the concept of rule by the people. He believed it was the natural right
of the wise and strong to lead societies to the fulfilment of their wise
aims, using subterfuge when necessary”.
Such a subterfuge is a presentation of the Court as
the only defence of pro-Western, ‘civilised’ society against the
onslaught of crazy religious nationalists, Kahanists and unruly
settlers. Without their approval, however, not a single settlement would
ever have arisen, and not a single dunam of Palestinian land would ever
have been confiscated. With one hand, they allow the Wall to encroach on
the Palestinian lands, with another, they pretend to defend Palestinian
Actually, the leading judges of the Supreme Court, Beinish and
Arbel, are personally responsible for the outbreak of the First
Intifada. As state prosecutors, they came up with a nasty legal
trick, the type a rabbi might describe as “kasher aval masriach”
(“it is kosher, but it stinks”). Only a minority of Palestinian
lands were parcellated and privatised, while the majority of lands
were in public use and were called ‘the lands of the Sultan’. The
two “liberal leftist” lady lawyers claimed that these lands belong
now to the Jewish State as it is now the Sultan, and thus they
allowed the State to seize Palestinian common lands and give them to
the settlers. Aharon Barak authorised the snatch. This mass
confiscation was the reason for the First Intifada.
They are also responsible for the second intifada, as they permitted
Ariel Sharon his march to the Temple Mount.
They are responsible for the terror, as this was caused by their
glaring injustice. When they sentenced Nahum Korman to six months of
public service for the murder of a Palestinian child, they signalled
to the Palestinians that they should not expect legal remedies from
They are responsible for the Second Lebanon War, as they blocked the
release of Kuntar after Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon.
More than anyone else , they are responsible for creating the
apartheid system in Israel.
We should not allow them to shift their guilt to the
Executive or to the Legislative powers, i.e. to the government and to
the Knesset. They interfere in the affairs of the state so often and so
thoroughly that they should bear the responsibility themselves.
Still, they would not be able to seize supreme power
without some important help from the Media. The Media are another
non-democratic, non-elected power. In Israel, the media belong to five
wealthy families; they appoint chief editors and journalists as they see
fit, and they decide who are their friends and enemies, and whether they
should attack Olmert or Beinish, nuke Iran or make inroads into Gaza.
Being inherently non-democratic, mass media owners tend to support other
non-democratic structures, be it the Armed Forces or the Supreme Court.
These two non-elected and non-democratic powers of
Media and Judiciary entered into conspiracy against the elected
parliament and government. In every newspaper you can read that the
public despises the parliamentarians and does not trust the government.
The media promote these feelings, thereby undermining the democratic
powers. The police and the judiciary do all they can in order to confirm
our suspicions. They leak their deliberations into the media and start a
witch-hunt. As a result, the elected politicians appear as sinful, if
not outright criminal, weaklings, and the very concept of democracy, of
Majority Rule is undermined.
When the Judicial and Media powers allied and took
control over the Executive and Legislative, they create a paradigm
shift. This shift is universal, rather than local. Just recently, in
Turkey, the High court decided to outlaw the ruling party; in
Philippines, the High court blocked an accord that was concluded by
the government and the Muslim rebels. In the US, the courts allowed for
abortions and same-sex marriages, for dismantling trade unions and for
social insecurity. This is the great success of totalitarian liberalism.
People convinced that Supremacy of Law is a good thing should consider
that this puts paid to democracy as decisively as any dictatorial coup.
This leads to rule by anonymous ‘Wise Elders’, while ordinary people are
excluded from decision-making.
The true Left and true Right should look at this
shift with horror, for these movements have their basis in the people’s
will. They seek the people’s approval; they try to attract the people to
their side. Even the most far out political movements, from Fascists to
Communists, still turn to the people for their mandate. Deep down, they
are democratic, for they believe in Majority Rule. Now is the time for
the Left and the Right to unite to regain democracy, while cutting the
judges power down to their normal size.
The People never had much say in Israel: the country
was run for years by one party and one army, with power smoothly
shifting from a party boss to a general and back. Still, there was at
least the occasional appearance of democracy, and a chance to extend the
democratic base. Now, the Knesset and the Government have been made
irrelevant by the Court’s powers; and the Court is outside of our
Under the Court’s rule, Israel is entering the dark
realm of faceless and nameless dictatorship. This is not the
dictatorship we were taught to be afraid of, with the dictator riding a
white stallion surrounded by outriders or speaking in a stadium to the
enchanted masses. We have no portraits of the new dictators in our
homes; we are not asked to adore them; it’s the other way around, we may
not utter their names or even suspect that they exist. They do not run
for public office, they do not ask for our opinion, but they decide what
will be done.
They do not belong to the left or to the right. The Left and the Right
are parliamentary terms, while they are against democracy. They
undermine outstanding, personable and charismatic leaders; only petty
and corrupt politicians are allowed to survive their purges, for such
would never dare to fight these nameless dictators. With every
generation, Israeli politicians grow smaller in moral stature, until
they finally disappear in all but a name.
There is an urgent need to clean up the act of the
police and the Court. They should stay away from state business and
leave parliamentarians alone. They should take care of their job instead
of hunting for mischief. This needed roll-back can’t be done without
some left-and-right cooperation.
Active and pugnacious feminism is a part of the Court
agenda. The President of the Supreme Court, Dorit Beinish, and her best
friend Justice Edna Arbel are fervent feminists of Gloria Steinem’s
type. The rumours in Tel Aviv are divided, whether they like women, or
just gratuitously hate men. Such persons are certainly needed and useful
for the society, but they are entirely unsuitable to bear the
dictatorial powers they assumed. This subject is rarely discussed openly
for fear of being labeled ‘sexist’; likewise US Democrats are
unable to effectively fight the Neocons as they can’t politically
survive an accusation of antisemitism.
It would be good to roll the sorority’s advances back a notch, for being
convinced of the justices’ support, lesbian and feminist organisations
have sped up their drive to convert the country to their creed: they ran
gay pride parades, even in Jerusalem, though this annoys the
conservative and pious Jerusalemites. They noisily demonstrate against
the men pointed out by Beinish. Persecution of alleged heterosexual
harassers and abusers assumed the dimensions of a Salem witch hunt.
Under Beinish’s guidance, a new law has been promulgated, which
classified every heterosexual relationship between two co-workers as
sexual abuse, if not rape. The majority, family men and women are
discriminated against as they have less disposable income than gays and
Forceful and aggressive feminists take too much of
air time and wield too much influence. They are clannish, and defend
each other; criticism of such a woman is perceived as an attack on
women’s rights. In the Jewish state, the lesbians became the Jews of the
Jews: influential, powerful, pugnacious and protected by fear of sexism
label. It’s not that they have grievances: the prosperous and numerous
lesbian community is well integrated into all areas of public life. From
the Jewish religious point of view, lesbianism is not a sin (as opposed
to male homosexuality). They are really after re-gendering of the whole
society, and here they find some extremely antidemocratic allies:
re-gendering is not a way to gratify sexual desires or to correct
wrongs, but a most efficient form of social taming.
Under the fighting sorority’s influence, Israel has
been transformed. Once, US Jews would send their kids to Israel to get
married, now, Israel is the place to find a same-sex partner. Once,
Israel was a country of manly men and womanly women; not anymore. Things
have changed since the macho days of Six Day War, when homosexuality was
banned, one-eyed Defence Minister Dayan screwed every female conscript
and the Israeli army vanquished three Arab armies in a single week. Now
the gay tendency is no snag, ministers are sued for kissing a girl, and
the army is beaten up by a few bearded Lebanese. Traditionally
independent, Jewish women became even more so as they now serve in the
combat units, earn as much as men do, and are protected from flirtatious
looks by ever-alert police.
Beinish and Arbel are representative of this group.
The woman they hope will become the next Prime Minister of Israel,
Tsippi Livni, the foreign minister and an ex-secret service agent, is a
she passed millions of dollars to gay organisation led by her
patriotic sisters. Her victory is almost certain.
The sorority fights especially hard against men of
other, non-Ashkenazi communities, not only because of their racism, but
also because they – the Oriental Jews, the Arabs, the Russians – were
not tamed and re-gendered. They watch out and destroy every bright or
personable public man of these communities. For this purpose, they set
the police to spy after him, and eventually arrange for his downfall.
Aryeh Deri, the astute and pious founder of the Moroccan Shas (“the
Jewish Hamas”) religious party, was followed for ten years, until
they succeeded in building a dubious case against him and sending
him to jail.
Avigdor Lieberman, a brutal but personable leader of a Russian
party. The many sexist remarks around him concentrate on his, and
his party members, moustaches, that clear sign of hated masculinity.
Lieberman has been called to the police from time to time, and this
event is well publicised with the suspicions being aired, but he has
never been charged. Last week (27.7.08) frustrated Lieberman
appealed to the Supreme Court against the Attorney General. He
demanded to termination of the case against him, still open after 12
years of police efforts: “Charge me, or close the case”. In his
words, “State Prosecutor Edna Arbel continues to hound him because
he is a “friend of Aryeh Deri, Russian, sports a beard, and a
Arcadi Gaydamak, the charismatic Russian businessman and
philanthropist, is rather a romantic buccaneer type of a
businessman; a Henry Morgan or Cecil Rhodes. His past includes
stints in the Angola jungle and in the mountains of Yugoslavia, and
friendship with MPLA guerrillas and Serb militants. Now he is
running for mayor of Jerusalem. He was attacked by the sorority the
moment he decided to enter Israeli politics. He was accused of
money-laundering in a Bank ha-Poalim Affair, which came to naught
despite years of investigation and much of bad publicity. He was
never charged, but his name was besmirched and many Israelis are
afraid to be seen in his company. He also demanded to be charged or
declared innocent, but they prefer to keep the Damocles Sword
hanging over his head.
Could it be that these men were rotten, and police
just fulfilled its duty by investigating reports of their misdeeds? If
you go to police and complain that your house was robbed or your car
stolen, you’d probably will be told that they have no time or resources
for such investigations. They have more pressing things to do, like
spending thousands of working hours and millions of dollars to fight the
politicians. And the crosshairs were being set by the fighting sorority.
 It may be conceived as
the rebirth of the old fourth power, the Ecclesiastic one, for
Media preaches, and guides minds of people, establishing
normative and forbidden behaviour, just like the Church did.