The main casualty of yesterday's hearing in the High Court against Prime Minister Netanyahu and the coalition agreement is the honorable petitioner Adv. Eliad Shraga. His unflattering visibility in the photographed debate came in place of the hundreds of times he disturbed the judicial system and especially the High Court. 

However, his organization, the Movement for Quality Government, has never been charged with paying legal fees. Now he got the fine. He appeared as a pompous turkey and a falcon for democracy in its simple and fundamental ways. "Quality of government" means the attempt to represent the status of technocrats, security officials, senior officials, CEOs and legal advisers in the corridors of the regime, while the enemy are elected representatives on Saturday as members of the Knesset.

Eliad, when he sat down, two months ago put a truck with huge speakers in front of the president's house. In front of his protesters stood a few simple men with a cracked megaphone. Yesterday, he put the speaker truck into the Supreme Court hall and it looked bad. He got involved in squabbling around Basic Law: Government, and Vice President Waiter remarked to him: "My lord cannot be released from the law." He intends that the language of the law is clear about the prime minister in Netanyahu's situation. "You have to stick to the law," Judge Meltzer remarked.

"I'll explain in his honor, why not," Shraga replied. Justice Mazuz informed him that the Basic Laws do not set an explicit norm regarding a prime minister who does not have a final judgment. "The legislature and the constituent did not want to determine," commented Mazuz. 

Then, attorney Shraga got involved with Netanyahu's definition of "creature." "Who is that creature? What is this thing, what is this organ? "Until the presidential animal interrupted him and made it clear that it was not a creature but a member of the Knesset, and" there is no need to go to the dictionary to find a definition. " 

Shraga explicitly stated that he wanted a repeat of the adjudication scenario for Edelstein. His performance yesterday featured him as a loser. At one point, Justice Amit quietly and politely remarked to him that "they (Knesset members) represent the will of the people." Shraga is, in fact, an authentic representative of the class of technocrats who feel condescending to elected politicians. Anyone who read the words of a genius business tech entrepreneur who explained "why we are petitioning" will understand the mood.

Under the headline, he made a detailed and lengthy comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany, between Likud voters and the Nazis, and between Netanyahu and the pedophile ("There cannot be a prime minister like a pedophile cannot run a school."

On the morning of the hearing, there was concern that the president's decision to broadcast the hearing would turn the hearing hall into a showcase. It did not happen. We saw an adversarial discussion, and there seemed to be an attentive argument. The judges and judges did not appear to be one cohesive group that the lawyers used as a cheerleading band. 

Attorney Ravello, who represented Prime Minister Netanyahu, emphasized the fundamental connection between millions of voters and Netanyahu as elected. The Supreme Court - Some say that we saw yesterday the battlefield of the "war against democracy".

The impression was that the judges were looking for the same legal clauses that would allow them to legalize Netanyahu, while allowing opposing opponents their days in court.