The Supreme Court will not rule out the right of MK Benjamin Netanyahu this week to return and serve as prime minister. What the Knesset did not determine in connection with a prime minister indicted (under Basic Law: Government) or in connection with a candidate to serve in that capacity (under Government Law) will not be done by the Supreme Judges. 

It seemed that 11 people (as in Pirandello's play "Six People Looking for a Friend") who are clear about the charges against Netanyahu are struggling to understand how the Knesset enacted the law that allows the prime minister to serve until a final ruling, while ministers and deputies must resign as soon as they are served. Indicted. But to decide that Netanyahu is not allowed to serve, they need a legal "anchor," and the anchors proposed to them by lawyers who appeared before them yesterday, however interesting and creative, will not provide them.

The absurd is that a reasonable person does not want the prime minister to be charged with bribery, fraud and breach of trust, that he will have to spend part of his time in court, at the expense of managing state affairs, and have many conflicts of interest, mainly related to him and the "gatekeepers" in the system, except that the law There is a clear contradiction between the law and what seems obvious to many in a democratic state, whose leaders are not above the law.

Can the Court reject the discretion of those who sign that they consider Netanyahu their candidate for the post of prime minister, because their signature stems from a dubious coalition agreement? Can the Court reject Netanyahu's candidacy because he accepted the position, even though he does so? In public norms? Does Deri Panhassi, who is demanding the resignation of members of the government with an indictment against them, also perceive Netanyahu despite the laws that were later enacted by Halacha? Will the court determine that the bribery offense is in one category with treason or murder? And that, if it were the last two, the law would not prevent the ouster of the PM? Hard to believe.

On the other hand, the respondents' claims, which were based in large part on the number of voters for Likud in the last election campaign and the number of voters for Netanyahu's "bloc" parties, Neither did they apparently convince the court. After all, the number of voters for the election bloc came out with a message "just not Bibi" was greater, even if the results were different result, the court is not allowed to rely on the results of elections or polls to accept the decisions regarding the eligibility of candidates.

Vs. Netanyahu's rejection of reasonableness Limited, the court's intervention in the coalition agreement breaks the brunt of the impudence and hedonism, and, in the opinion of these lines, the Israeli democracy is far more realistic. Therefore, yesterday's hearing was to determine the court's right to intervene in the matter, but in today's hearing it may already intervene and cause changes.

At the end of 2000, I appointed a committee chaired by Judge Dorit Beinish "to examine the courts' opening to electronic media." In 2004, and until their realization, it took a long time, but better later than never. Anyone who is looking for reasons for national pride can find one in the Supreme Court, now exposed to every home.