Jerusalem District Court, site of the trial
Chancellor Sebastian Kurtz from Austria resigned because of charges of bribery against him. A front page headline read "Drama in Austria: Chancellor Resigns Due to Suspected Bribe in Exchange for good press coverage."
It is obvious to all why the editor chose this particular wording. It reminds him of something, or rather, someone, where similarly, the party head was accused of extensive bribery in exchange for a positive survey (Hint: Binyamin Netanyahu). A pity that we are not Austria; otherwise we would have no need for four rounds of elections and a court case which will drag on ad infinitum.
Netanyahu is also standing accused of the same thing but he never thought of leaving his office voluntarily. In the above case, it is written: "Kurtz' file is much lighter than the case against Netanyahu. Neither a billion shekel nor bribery of the media for the caprices of one family..."
Let's make some order here: the Austrian chancellor did not resign from his own good will or initiative. The coalition government which he established informed him that they would vote against him in a no confidence vote in the Austrian parliament, upon which he quickly resigned. He did not receive any support from his coalition partners and knew that if he did not resign of his own will, he would be forced to do so anyway pretty soon.
In addition, Kurtz is being accused of bribery using funds from the public coffers for the sake of receiving a supportive survey, and not for an unverified accusation of issuing various authorizations involving the media, authorizations given by the various pertinent bodies that are not under the control of the prime minister.
The main thing — everyone heard — the testimony of Ilan Yeshua, CEO of the media company which, according to the charge against Netanyahu, gave a positive coverage of Netanyahu. The man was exposed on the witness stand as a chronic liar, whose entire testimony was dismissed, not leaving anything substantial to rely upon. One of the judges whose patience exploded from the accumulated lies of the central witness presented by the prosecution, turned to him with a request: "Perhaps, sir, you can tell us when you lie and when you speak the truth?"
This sentence conveys more than everything, the judges' opinion on his testimony.
Furthermore, the prosecution was exposed in its shame, as it intentionally concealed from the defense a great deal of data in its possession, and also exposed the affairs of their central witness over the years. It was revealed that all the Who's Who in the country also gained positive survey results if they knew how to push the right button by Yeshua, whereas Netanyahu in the end got negative coverage.
In summation: If Yeshua was the prosecution's central witness and the court case opened with him, any objective person can understand that this was case was a foregone conclusion against Netanyahu. In an enlightened society, it would not be Netanyahu who was being asked to resign but, rather, the prosecution staff which deceived the court, alongside the mendacious witness put on the witness stand.
These facts do not jibe with the story line of Netanyahu's enemies who sought his resignation on the grounds of the charge and find it difficult to accept the reality thrown in their face by which this allegation is crumbling in the course of the case which is exposing the whole charge in its shame.
