The High Court's position in the petition against Netanyahu was, in all due respect, also correct and sensible. • The court may, perhaps even must, restrain • Interpretation

• Supreme Court Justices, Vogelman and Waiter // Photo: Oren Ben Hakon

"The sad result (of the court's pursuit of 'political' questions; AA) is that the court seems to abandon its proper place, over disputes that divide the public, and its judges descend into the arena themselves." In these harsh words, Justice Moshe Landau, later The president of the Supreme Court and one of his eminent judges warned his colleagues not to fall into the pit of the petitioners, when they asked them to decide "who is a Jew".

In another context, when the issue of the legal validity of a coalition agreement came up in court, Judge Menachem Elon added, in an ancient way: "Multiple Justice - No Justice." Needless to say, the issue of "who is a Jew", the validity of a political agreement, or the issue of the commission of the government by a criminal defendant are entirely different issues. Each issue - and its characteristics. And yet, at the door of the court, the sin of "politicization" is always borne, which may drag it into undesirable districts, which will only undermine its status and sometimes even undermine its decisions - and its judgments are found to be at a loss.

The famous ancestor, "Which one is wise? Who sees the foresight," someone once interpreted: The wise is the one who "sees the foresight" after he is already born, and only then announces whether it is a daughter or a son. The High Court's position yesterday was, in all due respect, also correct. The court does not order the petitions filed before it. When a petition is filed, it is not entitled to turn its back on it and refrain from hearing it. But it certainly may, perhaps even must, To act with restraint and moderation, and not rush to decide any petition before him.

PM Benjamin Netanyahu // Photo: Mark Israel Salem

One of the judges said many years ago that a petitioner may place a mine at the door of the court, but the judges do not have to step on it. Of course they do not have to do so if there is no real and urgent need to make an early decision. In this case, any decision made by the court, whether it accepted the petition or rejected it outright (either on its merits or for reasons of non-justification and the like), would paint its decision in vivid political colors.

Postponing the decision - preferably until after the election - will not cause any real harm. On the contrary. In any case, as the judges noted, this is a completely theoretical issue at this time. If, after the election, it is ascertained that the president did or intends to impose the government on Netanyahu (and the president, we remember, has very broad discretion in this matter, and, as a rule, the president's decisions are also immune from judicial review), then the court, by necessity, will be forced into the thick of it The beam. Until then, it should be avoided. Beyond the current specific issue, there is room to reiterate the warning previously made by esteemed judges (such as Justices Landau, Whitton, Elon, Shamgar, and others) regarding the court's precaution to take precedence in discussing issues that may even be painted in legal colors - and there is no issue in the world It can be dressed up in legal suits - if its obvious dominant factor is the political, not the legal, face.