The Abu Dhabi attacks, Iran talks and Netanyahu’s plea deal plan.

Axios from Tel Aviv

By Barak Ravid ·Jan 26, 2022

Today’s edition (2,055 words, 8 minutes) starts with a classified Israeli cable, then gets you up to speed on

1 big thing: Scoop… Israel’s “top priority” mission to discredit UN probe

Israel is planning a campaign to discredit a UN commission formed to investigate the violence in Gaza last May and the root causes of the protracted conflict in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, according to an Israeli Foreign Ministry cable seen by Axios.

Why it matters: Israeli officials say they are highly concerned that the commission’s report will refer to Israel as an “Apartheid state” and that its findings could damage Israel’s reputation, particularly among progressives in the West. The report is expected in June.

“Our main goal will be to de-legitimize the commission, its members and its products.”
— classified Israeli Foreign Ministry cable

The backstory: The UN Human Rights Council in Geneva voted narrowly last May to form the Commission of Inquiry. The Western democracies on the committee objected to the fact that the commission’s mandate was unusually broad when it came to investigating Israel, and didn’t specifically mention investigating Hamas.

Rights groups accused both Israel and Hamas of international law violations during two weeks of fighting last May, in which over 250 people were killed in the Gaza Strip and 13 in Israel.

The commission is designed to be ongoing, with reports due every June to the council in Geneva and every September to the UN General Assembly in New York.
In addition to probing conflicts in the West Bank and Gaza, the commission was also tasked with investigating human rights violations in Israel.
Details: The commission is headed by former UN commissioner for human rights Navi Pillay, former UN special rapporteur Miloon Kothari and human rights law expert Chris Sidoti.

Israel has declined to cooperate with the inquiry and claimed the commission’s mandate and membership are biased against Israel. The Biden administration doesn’t support the inquiry and played a central role in cutting its funding by 25% in UN budget negotiations.

Behind the scenes: Last week, the international organizations department of Israel’s Foreign Ministry sent a classified cable to all Israeli diplomatic missions around the world. It designated the commission of inquiry as its “top priority” at the UN in 2022.

The cable said the Foreign Ministry was about to start a diplomatic campaign on the issue that will be increased ahead of the UN Human Rights Council meeting in March.

Israel has had some partial successes in the past when seeking to discredit UN commissions. In some cases, UN investigators have resigned, and the judge behind a probe of the 2008 Gaza war later backtracked on some of his conclusions.

The other side: A spokesperson for the commission of inquiry declined to comment directly on Israel’s criticism but said the commission was comprised of three independent and impartial experts who are not paid for their work and will investigate allegations of international law violations by all parties — state or non-state — without distinction.

“As an independent body, the Commission conducts its own investigations independently and separately from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and other United Nations offices and agencies,” the spokesperson said.

2. The view from Abu Dhabi: UAE plots path forward after Houthi attacks

A little over a week after Abu Dhabi suffered its first deadly attack by Yemen’s Houthi rebels, the UAE is using a combination of military and diplomatic measures to pressure the Houthis to come to the negotiating table, writes Mustafa Alrawi, assistant editor-in-chief of The National.

Driving the news: On Monday, the UAE military intercepted two ballistic missiles fired at Abu Dhabi by Houthi rebels from Yemen. No casualties were reported, but three people were killed in the attack one week earlier.

The U.S. military’s Central Command helped foil Monday’s attack, which targeted an air base that hosts nearly 2,000 U.S. service members. The UAE Ministry of Defense later announced Emirati fighter jets had destroyed the missile launcher used to fire the rockets.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi arrived in Abu Dhabi on Wednesday to show his support after the attacks.

Saudi-led airstrikes last Friday killed dozens of people in Yemen and knocked out the internet. The Houthis have also targeted Saudi Arabia.
State of play: Despite the lingering question of whether such attacks will become a regular worry, daily life in the UAE remains unaffected.

Children in Abu Dhabi went back to school as scheduled this week after a period of distance learning due to COVID-19 safety measures.
Large-scale international business events and conferences have carried on. The airports are unaffected. Oil prices and local stock markets seem to have shrugged off the immediate worry.

One impact, however, is that flights of all drones and light sports aircraft have been banned without special permission.

What they’re saying: The UAE government said it would defend itself “proportionately” against the Houthi attacks.

Emirati diplomatic adviser Anwar Gargash told U.S. special envoy for Yemen Tim Lenderking last week that the Houthis were unwilling to work toward a political solution to the war and must therefore face additional international pressure.

The UAE has pushed for the U.S. to redesignate the Iran-backed Houthis as a terror group, as Axios reported last week.

President Biden promised to withdraw support for the Saudi-led coalition upon taking office, but his administration has been sending signals of support to the UAE after the attacks.

The big picture: After Houthi rebels took the Yemeni capital in 2014, a Saudi-led coalition — which includes the Emiratis and was backed by the U.S. — intervened and the conflict spiraled into a civil war and perhaps the world’s worst humanitarian crisis.

The UAE had been seeking to deescalate the conflict, including by reaching out to Iran, which backs the Houthis. Emirati officials say they will continue to push for a ceasefire in Yemen and then a political solution.

However, the attacks could dial up regional tensions with Iran, which is believed to have supplied most of the Houthis’ advanced weaponry.
The renewed tensions could make some in the region more likely to speak out against a new nuclear deal with Iran, assuming it doesn’t address the proliferation of ballistic missiles.

Worth noting: Israeli President Isaac Herzog will arrive in Abu Dhabi on Sunday. This will be the first-ever public visit of an Israeli president in the UAE.

3. Israeli president plans to accept invitation to visit Erdo?an

Israel and Turkey are negotiating the terms of a visit by Herzog to Ankara that could take place in the near future, Israeli officials tell me.

Why it matters: Such a visit would be a major breakthrough in the frozen relationship between the two countries.

Israeli-Turkish relations have gone through a series of crises over the past decade, most recently in 2018 when the U.S. moved its embassy to Jerusalem and Turkey expelled the Israeli ambassador from Ankara.

Since President Biden assumed office, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdo?an — who has also reached out to rivals like Egypt and the UAE — has been sending signals that he wants to turn a new page in the relationship.

Erdo?an used a congratulatory phone call after Herzog was inaugurated last July to start engaging directly with Israel. They have spoken on the phone three times since, including once earlier this month.

Behind the scenes: According to the Israeli officials, Erdo?an told Herzog during the calls that he would like to host him in Ankara. That led to an internal discussion among Israeli foreign policy officials about whether Herzog should accept.

Last week, Erdo?an revealed the invitation publicly, said the visit could take place soon, and said Turkey’s relations with Israel shouldn’t be managed as a quarrel.
Days later, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavu?o?lu called his Israeli counterpart Yair Lapid to wish him a speedy recovery from COVID. This was the first phone call between Israeli and Turkish foreign ministers in 13 years.

What they’re saying: A senior Israeli official said Herzog’s visit wouldn’t happen right away but it was not a question of if, but how and when.

“If a leader of an important Muslim country like Turkey reaches out to Israel, there is no option other than giving a positive answer,” the senior Israeli official said.
The senior official added that Israel had sent messages in recent weeks to reassure Greece and Cyprus that rapprochement with their rival Turkey wouldn’t come at the expense of Israel’s partnerships with them.

Between the lines: Israeli officials see Erdo?an’s moves to repair relations with Israel as a means to improve his relations with the Biden administration ahead of the elections in Turkey and amid a growing economic crisis.

One major impediment will be the Turkish government’s relationship with Hamas, which operates freely in Turkey. Israel claims the militant group directs attacks from a headquarters in Istanbul.

Israel’s Shin Bet intelligence agency stressed in the internal discussions about Turkey that any normalization process must include limiting Hamas activity in Turkey, according to the Israeli officials.

Flashback: During past efforts to repair relations, it had typically been Israel doing the outreach and Erdo?an making demands, particularly over Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians.

January 26, 2022 | 14 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

14 Comments / 14 Comments

  1. In the Law Insider one of the many definitions of:

    Anything of value means any money or property, favor, service, payment, advance, forbearance, loan, or promise of future employment, but does not include:

  2. Case 4000′

    The session focused on a case nicknamed Case 4000, which looks at how Netanyahu allegedly granted favours to Shaul Elovitch, then-head of Israel’s largest telecommunications company, Bezeq, in exchange for favourable coverage by its Walla news website.

    Netanyahu is accused of offering regulatory benefits that could have been worth millions to Bezeq in return for the politically advantageous press coverage.

    Hefetz said that in 2015, shortly before elections, Elovitch contacted him regularly to lobby for governmental approval of his group’s merger with cable TV operator Yes, and to see who would be the next communications minister.

    “I think he (Elovitch) was thinking at the time: who knows who will win; so the Yes deal had to be signed first,” Hefetz said.

    https://www.dw.com/en/israel-former-aide-testifies-in-netanyahu-corruption-trial/a-59899155

  3. @Edgar in case 4000 Bibi received on Walla received highly favorable press which was directed by his family. You are talking about one of the other cases.

    Currently ONLY case 4000 is being tried.

    Walla is a Hebrew Press, which I sense some commentators may not be aware of.

  4. @Adam your argument about what is value is the argument that is being made but it is highly contentious. I argue that the value Bibi got was basically FREE advertising which has monetary value anyway. You are again in your argument conflating all three cases (you have done this in the past). This means nothing in a legal sense. The cases are being tried separately. Clouding the issue by conflating the issue may work on a blog but means nothing in court, as the judges will NOT conflate the cases when trying them. Right now case 4000 is being tried.

    Case 4000 which is the one I was discussing and is by far the most serious case according to the charge and witness testimony has Bibi fixing regulations to the benefit of owners of Walla and he receiving basically free political advertising as his family directed was written on Walla to his political benefit

    If the Judges view as it appears as a Quid Quo Pro he will be found guilty and be subject to prison time.

  5. 2 Bear. Bear, as I understand it, Israeli law and the laws of nearly all democracies define bribery as the receipt of something of “material” value in return for government favors. “Material value” means something that can ultimately valued in monetary terms, such as an expensive electric fence around a pulic officials house, or home improvements to his house, for which he rewards the contractor with a government contract–let us say, to build affordable public housing. I am basing these examples on some widely-publicized corruption cases in the United States.

    In America, it has always been legal and an accepted practice for politicians to require businessmen to make monetary contributions to their political campaigns, in return for support for legislation or regulations favorable to these businessmen and their companies. Although many people have denounced this practice as legalized bribery, the U.S. courts, including the Supreme Court, have repeatedly euled it to be legal. The Supreme Court has even upheld the right of cororations and wealthy individuals to make their campaign contributions through “nonprofit” organizations that they control, which in effect means legalizing anonymous contributions and ending financial disclosure laws.

    One former Supreme Court justice has suggested that a constitutional amendment should be adopted giving Congress the right to regulate and limit campaign contributions. No serious effort has been made by Congress or any state legislaure to adopt such an amendment.

    put simply, Bibi received a benefit which he valued greatly (basically free political advertising directed by his family and him) for changing regulations for the huge financial benefit to the owners of Walla. Corrupt to the core if factual. A quid quo pro in legal terms.”

    But the law in Israel and elsewhere does not make it a bribe if an official receives something he “values greatly” unless this something has tangible, measureable value in material terms. If the value of the gift he receives is of indetermine and uncertain value, and it does not necessarily give him a tangible reward, it is not a bribe in law. Both Israeli and foreign courts have ruled to that effect in earlier cases.

    The very modest amount of favorable publicity that Bibi received from the newspaper was extremely unlikely to have won him reelection. Most articles in the newspaper continued to be very critical of Netanyahu. And many other Israelis newspapers and news sites continued to be very critical of Netanyahu. The Bezeq chairman’s display support may have had some subjective value in Netanyahu’s mind, but its objective, tangible to him was negligible or nonexistent. Just giving a politician something that pleases him or makes him happy is not bribe unless it has some objective, measurable value to him.

    And in any case, helping a politician to win reelection by legal means, such as writing favorable columns about him, has never been considered bribery, even if the journalist did receive something he valued, such as a government appointment, later on.

    If Bibi is convicted on this charge, all political horsetrading in which a politician offers something a value to a political party he wants to help him form a coalition, such as funding for institutions connected with this political party, and ministerial appointments for its members, could be considered bribes. And If a politician’s trading political support for a special interest, (such as funding for haredi yeshivas or Arab schools), in return for assistance to the politician in winning an election or being appointed to a high office will be considered a crime, Israeli politics will become completely ungovernable, and only judges and prosecutors will have any authority at all.

    Political horse trading was all that was involved in “case 400,” and a democracy cannot function without it. The future of democracy in Israel requires that this case be thrown out of court, or at least dropped in any plea bargain.

  6. @ BEAR-

    My understanding is that the P.M did NOT get the favourable articles that he was supposed to have bribed his way into., In fact everything I’ve read about this particular item said that this did NOT occur.

    And if the plea bargain leaks are true, Mandelblit was prepared to drop that case completely.

  7. @ADAM-

    Thanks for the comprehensive details, there were a few things I did not know. I agree with your opinion of the behaviour of the Israeli legal persecution, if that was what you were meaning. .He was just doing as it was traditionally accepted in Israeli politics , looking as his contemporaries and predecessors. My opinion..
    I believe, although not absolutely certain, that the diamond earrings were a birthday or some festival present. Definitely a personal gift and not meant as even a subtle bribe. They guy has millionaire and billionaire close friends…….I’d like to have had such also.
    I’m glad that Mandelblit is gone, but what will the new guy be like, and who will chose him. Maybe proposed by Bennett, then a govt (?) decision.. He won’t lean towards Netanyahu, I’m sure.

  8. @Adam I have read your points many times on Bibi and the regulations he had approved for the benefit of Bezeq owners. Case 4000

    If the judges view it as the latest witness portrayed and as per the charges it is bribery, fraud and breach of trust.

    Put simply, Bibi received a benefit which he valued greatly (basically free political advertising directed by his family and him) for changing regulations for the huge financial benefit to the owners of Walla. Corrupt to the core if factual. A quid quo pro in legal terms.

    I know you disagree and think it is all a political witch hunt. That is his defense but I think it is likely the judges will convict on this charge and he could get prison time.

    I hope he negotiates a plea deal which keeps him out of prison but retires from politics, which I believe benefits him personally and Israel.

    The other two cases (1000 and 2000) are believe are less serious even though he did unethical acts and transgressed laws. Those should be horse traded away for a guilty plea on case 4000 in my view.

  9. @Edgar. Yes,Bibi’s movie producer friend also asked Bibi to contact the the U.S. State Department on his behalf. But it was not to get him a visa to go to the United States, since he already had permanent resident status in the United States and a large house in the Los Angeles area, but rather to confirm that his residence in the United States was his permanent home, and his residence in Israel was his vacation home or secondary residence. The film producer believed that this would help him to qualify for some sort of tax reduction in Israel, where people who have only a secondary residence in the country are taxed at a lower rate than those with their primary residence in Israel. At least that is what I remember–my memory is a little hazy on this point. The producer wanted the State Department to certify that the movie executive’s primary residence was in the U.S., which was true. This request that he verify with the U.S. state department that his primary residence was in the U.S. was also related to his request that Bibi obtain a tax exemption for him from Israel’s Finance Department. Bibi did ask the Finance Minister at the time to grant his producer friend the requested tax exemption, but the minister of finance at the time (can’t remember who he was) declined on advice from the civil servant in the ministry who decided on tax reduction requests.

    At least that’s what I remember–my memory is a little hazy and may be incorrect.

    In addition to receiving gifts of brandy,wine and cigars from his Israeli-American friend, Bibi received several new suits from him, and his wife received gifts of jewelry–diamond earrings, I think.

    In most democratic countries, a government official who receives gifts from someone who wants the official’s help with obtaining some sort of government benefit is asked to resign, but is not prosecuted. Usually the official is cut some slack if he has a long record of honorable service to the nation. Examples of government officials who were not prosecuted even though they had committed what could be regarded as crimes include former President Richard Nixon in the U.S. and Prime Minister Lloyd George of Britain. Two French presidents were convicted after they left office of minor offenses, but were only fined and given probation, not jail time. Going back further in time, the famous scientist and philosopher Francis Bacon, who was also Britain’s Lord Chancellor for a time, pleaded guilty to bribery with extenuating circumstances. He was given only a symbolic one day in prison, but was dismissed from his position as Lord Chancellor and disbarred from practicing law in the future.

    Bibi’s distinguished services to the nation over the course of many years definitely entitle him to lenient treatment.

    There is also the question of the extremely selective prosecution of Bibi. The prolonged investigation and prosecution of him, especially on two charges that are of very dubious legality, were morally wrong. The prosecutors committed serious crimes in connection with the investigation by continuously leaking information to the press about their investigation that was damaging to Bibi. This is a crime under Israeli law, but that statute has never been enforced. Probable crimes committed by numerous government officials affiliated with leftist political parties were never even investigated, much less prosecuted. This includes the currently serving President, Herzog, who years ago when he was chairman of the Labor Party’s finance committee funneled millions of shekels in illegal campaign contributions from foreign nationals into the party’s coffers; and the current Minister of Defense, Gantz, who defrauded the Defense department of millions of shekels when he and two business partners persuaded the defense department to award them a contract for computer technology that was never delivered, because their company quickly declared bankrupcy. Gantz and his partners never compensated the Department of Defense for the millions of shekels they defrauded it of.

    The list could go on. The selective nature of the prosecution of Bibi, as well as the criminaalthough customary activities of the prosecutors themselves, should in some future, better time be investigated by a special prosecutor chosen by the Knesset.

  10. @ADAM-

    Your layout and reasoning sound just on the mark. But about the personal gifts. I was not aware of this situation. I read that his 20-25 year long friend abroad who sent him these gifts had asked him to use his influence to try to get the guy a visa for the US.

    I thought it strange at the time, because he was massively wealthy, who must have had contacts and even business in the US already. But…that’s what I read. Maybe it was the other friend, as there were 2. And all I read was Brandy, champagne and Cigars.

    And the steady stream of political notables to Israel, would have got most of that.

  11. I don’t think that Bibi should plead guilty to the charges that he demanded more favorable news coverage from newspaper owners in return for supporting laws or regulations that would benefit these owners or their corporations. That sort of political horse-trading has always been a customary and established practice in all democratic countries, and has never before this been treated as a criminal offense in any of these countries. To agree to plead guilty to these charges would set a terrible precedent for future Israeli prime ministera and other ministers, making it difficult for them to obtain the political support that all politicians need in order to govern, win elections, form coalitions etc. Bibi therefore should not agree to a guilty plea on these two counts, involving Bezel and Maariv, because of the terrible precedent that would be set if he is convicted on these charges.

    On the other hand, perhaps Bibi should plead guilty to the count in the indictment that he accepted personal gifts with some monetary value, although not cash, from a movie producer who wanted him to use his power to give him a tax break. For various reasons I think even this charge is unfair. Nevertheless a government official should never accept personal gifts from someone who is seeking a government action or decision favorable to him. In this case, the government failed to establish that there was any quid pro quo agreement between Bibi and his movie producer friend in which Bibi requested these gifts in return for helping the movie mogul with his tax problems. But Bibi did make an effort to obtain the tax break sought by the movie executive, although his efforts were unsuccessful, since the civil servant whose consent was necessary to give tax emptions refused to agree to it. Still it was improper for Bibi

    This sort of behavior, a public official accepting personal gifts from someone who wants his assistance with a government decision, is considered illegal or at least improper in most democratic countries. However, the “guilty” official is usually only forced to resign and is not indicted on criminal charges. And even when an official is indicted on criminal charges for this kind of behavior, he is almost always let off with a fine and probation, and spared jail time.

    Still, if Bibi decides to plead guilty to this charge, it will not harm the public interest. In general, public officials should not accept valuable gifts for personal use from people who are seeking benefits from the government.

  12. As I have pointed out earlier, a plea deal is extremly unlikely to ever be implemented. It is unlikely that the trial court will accept a plea deal. I doubt if the judges want Netanyahu to get off lightly. But even if the trial judges OK the plea deal, the Supreme Court will almost certainly overturn it once it receives a petition from “progressive” groups asking it to do this.

  13. Netanyahu still interested in plea after talks collapse

    Former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is still interested in a plea deal even after his negotiations with outgoing Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit broke down, two sources with direct knowledge of the issue tell me.

    Why it matters: Netanyahu’s corruption trial is about to enter a critical phase with several key witnesses expected to appear in court in the coming weeks.

    Netanyahu had hoped to reach a deal before Mandelblit left office at the end of January, but the attorney general has reportedly notified Netanyahu’s lawyers that this won’t be possible.

    The deal they’d been discussing would have kept Netanyahu out of prison, but seen him banned from politics for seven years.

    Earlier this week, Netanyahu broke his silence on the plea talks and said he’d never accepted the seven-year ban.

    Behind the scenes: A source who spoke to Netanyahu in the last two weeks said the former prime minister really wants a deal.

    According to the source, Netanyahu’s state of mind has changed since he left the Prime Minister’s Office and in particular after his family vacation on billionaire Larry Ellison’s island in Hawaii last summer.

    The source quoted Netanyahu as saying, “There is a life out there,” and added that the former prime minister said he wants to write a book and make money.

    Both sources said one major obstacle was opposition to a deal from Netanyahu’s wife Sara and his son Yair, whom the former prime minister had tried and failed to bring on board.

    What’s next: Negotiations will likely continue under the next attorney general, who has yet to be named.

    For now, Netanyahu is reasserting his standing inside the Likud party to head off the intra-party jockeying that had begun over his potential replacement.
    He’s also attacking Prime Minister Naftali Bennett’s COVID policies after weeks of near silence while he was negotiating the plea deal.