The High Court instructed the Attorney General to announce whether he intended to give an opinion on whether Benjamin Netanyahu could be tasked with the task of assembling the government in accordance with the results of the following elections. The Judiciary does indeed have the authority to express its opinion on any question regarding rule of law, but also stands alongside it. Questioning the appropriateness of exercising authority. Three reasons for cumulative power are, in my opinion, decisive against formulating pre-election opinions.

The first reason is embodied in the fact that the opinion is gullible, and will only be relevant if the election results allow the government to impose a net on Netanyahu. At this stage, we do not know the results, nor whether the Likud will put Netanyahu in his head. The practice of any legal counsel is to avoid theoretical opinions. The Court is not an academic symposium.

The second reason lies in the circumstances that will follow. This reason corresponds with the matter of certainty: it is of no use in an opinion if it does not take into account all the relevant circumstances that exist when giving it. The point of departure is that there is no law prohibiting a Knesset member who has been indicted for the assembly, and the law also allows the prime minister to serve even while the trial is in progress. A decision to refrain from assuming the role of a Knesset member who is also a defendant is a question of reasonableness that is rooted in all the background circumstances; The indictment on the one hand and the extent and significance of the decision of the voters on the other. The reasonableness of the Authority's decision is influenced by the circumstances. It is well known that a decision that does not consider all the relevant circumstances is invalid. The same can be said of a vile opinion.

The third reason is that the Judiciary must enclose itself at its doorstep as a legal advisor and avoid as much as possible, directly or indirectly, on voter moves at the ballot box. Clearly, a certain opinion of the Judiciary may influence voter voting. The Judiciary does not have to adapt the legal "time clock" to the political "time clock", but formulating opinions now is like a decline to the political arena.

True, it can be argued that the Supreme Court has now formulated its opinion to prevent voters from voting idly. But the core of the democratic idea is to leave voting at the ballot box. In democratic elections, uncertainty arises on various questions. Despite the problems that may arise, legal judgment should Following the voter’s decision, and damaging it, harnessing the carriage in front of the horses can artificially tilt the carriage way, and even disrupt it.

Prof. Oded Modric is a (retired) Vice President of the Tel Aviv District Court and is currently a lecturer at Ariel University. Former advisor to Netanyahu's defense team