Even if Convicted, Omri May Not Have to Resign from Knesset
Excerpts:
“‘Due to the fact that determining whether an offense constitutes a crime of moral turpitude is an integral part of the ruling, the verdict handed down against the defendant cannot be seen as a final ruling,’ says criminal law expert Prof. Emanuel Gross. ‘A defendant can appeal just the issue of the turpitude, since this ruling is an essential part of the verdict. In other words, the issue of the turpitude must become final, and pending a final ruling on the matter of the turpitude, the lawmaker’s term in office cannot be terminated.'”
“The State Prosecution plans to ask the court to rule that the offenses for which Sharon was convicted do indeed constitute crimes of moral turpitude. For his part, Sharon’s attorney, Dan Sheinman, is set to try to convince the court otherwise.”
Translated: If Daddy is a good boy, the “final ruling” may come down — no moral turpitude. In essence, more blackmail! MB
Could the Prime Minister Truly Not Have Known?
And Omri’s Father Remains Silent
Excerpts:
“Ariel Sharon is a man who does not swallow his pride. He has a hard time admitting mistakes, and bears a grudge against anyone who hurts him. But lo and behold, this man, who has a developed sense of self-esteem, who makes a habit of demonstrating inner strength, independence and confidence in his way, is abandoning his son on the political battlefield and exposing him to a conviction – if not time in jail – for offenses committed, to say the least, in the service and on behalf of his father.”
“It is strange to see that the prime minister is allowing the process to move along without intervening on behalf of his son: He is not standing up and taking responsibility for the mess; he is not trying to limit the damage to his son by providing testimony that would make things easier for him; and he is acting like someone who has come to terms with the harsh outcome. The son is paying the price for the father’s political ambitions.”
“This response goes against a father’s natural instinct – to save the fruit of his loins from trouble. And it certainly goes against the prime minister’s image as a dedicated and warm father whose children and grandchildren are at the forefront of his concerns. Neither does it sit well with moral principles. After all, the offenses for which Omri Sharon has been convicted were committed on behalf of his father. How is the father now abandoning him to his fate?”
“The picture that emerges is that, in the Sharon family, the sons have assumed the role of defending their father (Omri, with regard to the offenses pertaining to the funding of the election campaign; and Gilad, in the case of the investigation into the Cyril Kern affair), while the father’s sensibilities and moral perceptions accept it.”
“Others will say that Ariel Sharon’s behavior in this instance is the antithesis of the ethos he has nurtured all his life: Never abandon an injured man on the battlefield.”
Having abandoned a soldier, Jonathan Pollard to a life-long prison in the US, and not having lifted as much a finger-tip to help Pollard, his silence in his son’s case must seem to be “old hat.” But perhaps, his silence serves to hide something more sinister? MB