The allegations against Netanyahu have a political motive as the permitted people run the judiciary. They make the impression that any person who resides in Israel has one way or another engaged in bribery. Alan Dershowitz, a law professor at Harvard and also a Democrat, has evaluated on the corruption issue and given out clarity of the same. According to Alan, those individuals who are in an urge to criticize Netanyahu out of the hatred they have for Israel due to its Jewish background are not concerned with the full truth.
Facts about Case 1000
Case 1000 that comprises of the allegations against Netanyahu for giving out tokens in return for cigars and champagne from allies, Alan noted that there is no prescribed law that gives out guidelines on what should be labelled as an enticement in this scenario. The charges state that Netanyahu gave out many tokens and received many gifts in return. However, it is not clear as to the number of acceptable awards which is not defined by law. Alan stated that not one person should be guilty of an offence except if he has maliciously broken a severe criminal rule.
Case 2000 details
The Case 2000 outlines how the prime minister allegedly backed up a law that would limit the Israel Hayom newsprint to get better coverage from its opponent, Yediot Aharonot, in an agreement with its publisher, Noni Mozes. In the end, Netanyahu voted against the law, resulting in prosecutors dealing with possible motives. Nevertheless, no real proof can be employed against him. Dershowitz is concerned that empowering prosecutors to investigate these mixed motives is to inspire them to implement undemocratic governance over significant democratic institutions. The professor requested Mandelblit to let Netanyahu do his work and allow Israelis to choose at the ballot if they like the prime minister conduct. To halt those political disagreements is to risk democracy and media freedom, as stated by Alan.
Case 4000, the relationship between media and politics
In the same way, Alan stated that in Case 4000 where the prime minister purportedly braced regulatory decisions formulated by civil servants in exchange for better coverage, a trial would be grounded upon speculation regarding the state of mind of the partakers. The connection between media and politics is shaded, subtle, and complicated to be laid to the criminal law, according to Alan. He further asserted that the politicians’ decisions are normally inspired by the coverage they would obtain from the media and an effort to get some individualistic outcome.
The cases can pose a danger to civil liberty
According to Dershowitz, Cases 4000 and 2000, in which Netanyahu is presupposed to back up legislation in return for an affirmative media reporting, present great jeopardy to democratic control and civil independence. He further asserted that no substantial evidence could show that law got infringed and also that the involved relationship among media personalities and politicians cannot get subjected to trial. Alternatively, the public should make a decision upon it, in terms of who to vote for or not in favor of representatives with undesirable behavior.