Despite the petitions filed against the Likud-Blue agreement, the Corona crisis and the threat of a fourth election do not seem to go unnoticed by the judges.

• Supreme Court Photo: Oren Ben Hakun

Although the coalition agreement between Gantz and Netanyahu was approved by the Knesset plenum in a preliminary reading, petitions against him have already been filed. Now the big question is: will the High Court intervene? 

A study of the text of the agreement clearly shows that the parties aspired to overcome the precedent of the High Court in similar contexts, including in relation to the enforcement of political agreements in local government. The case of Zhurevsky (1990), Shalit (1990), and Lanner (1994) (2005), and "Rightly" (2005), promoted the formula that the court practices great restraint and does not interfere with political agreements. Furthermore, the court also does not intervene in the event of a breach of the agreement. The parties' insistence on anchoring consents in the legislation was therefore understandable: what is the point of a political agreement, if the High Court's precedents are known that cannot be enforced? 

Thus, the High Court states in Wallner's judgment (1994): "As a party may oppose the Bill of Rights, it may also devalue the value of the Bill of Rights or Basic Law, and seek to repeal the Basic Laws, and to engage with another party to advance its cause. You can't help it. It is not the court that has to do so in this case. In democracy there are other processes in which opinion is expressed about the nature, nature and purpose of political action. "

How many amendments will the High Court face? Is the amendment in the Basic Law: The Government regarding two prime ministers in a rotational government position legal, is the decision on the appointment of senior government officials legal, and whether the appointment of members of the Judiciary Committee is legal. The rotation of the prime ministers only regulates the exchanges, without accompanying it to operative measures that impair the purity of the dimensions and the purity of governmental considerations, in particular the other amendments regarding the appointment of senior officials and the commission's appointment of judges may be viewed as a freeze of legal status in the future.

In the background is the fact that the amendment is a prime ministerial candidate's office, which is facing severe indictment. The High Court tried to escape the decision. His precedents in the ministers' case Deri and Panhasi and in the case of the mayors Gepso, Rochberger and Lahani indicate that the High Court may continue the direction and direct the Knesset to express its position specifically. There is no doubt that the Corona crisis and the treatment required to recover socially and economically, along with the threat of a fourth election, will not go unnoticed by the High Court. The High Court may therefore seek a legal path to legalize the coalition agreement as well. 

Prof. Asaf Midney is Dean of the School of Government and Society at Tel Aviv-Yafo Academic College, President of the Israeli Political Science Association and Visiting Professor at New York University