Had a tourist here known Hebrew from Mars, and had read the Supreme Court's judgments over the past seven decades, it would have concluded that the court almost always escapes from dramatic decisions and direct intervention in the decisions of other authorities. Many decisions give the various authorities a long time to make their own decisions, or state that the High Court has no place to intervene. Even when the High Court decides to intervene, it endeavors to assign its decision to a specific issue, which will not become a matter of principle. 

The court's caution is usually well-deserved, as was the one it took last week when it rejected the petitions against Netanyahu and the coalition agreement. Significant is the fact that the Court's requests for clarification from the parties on certain points (such as withholding legislation on issues not involving the epidemic) have caused some changes to the coalition agreement. The rare consensus among the 11 judges should also not be ignored, especially regarding the court's unwillingness to pre-agree on future legislation, even if that legislation is due the next day.

I don't think the court missed an opportunity to make a normative decision, and I'm not disappointed with the outcome. The judges' arguments were convincing, about what they had decided - and also about what they hadn't decided. The court ruled that the issues raised in Fatah were justifiable, both with regard to the next government component and coalition agreements. The court also held that on the issues of legislation involved in the establishment of the unity government, it can only discuss whether petitions will be filed after the actual legislation. Among the petitions already filed after the legislation is the question of the status of the alternate prime minister.

Netanyahu's intention was to establish a special status for the alternate prime minister, which would allow him to enjoy the special rights granted to the prime minister so far, most notably being able to serve under indictment pending a court ruling. The court regards the Panchasi and Deri rule (according to which the prime minister should fire a minister or deputy minister who has been indicted for "crime" offenses) as valid even after the law has ruled that they can continue to serve until they are convicted in court on charges of dishonor.

The argument is that if the offense is particularly serious, the prime minister should be fired, even if the law allows them to continue to serve. On this basis, the court will be able to determine, in the coming days, that a new legal personality of a prime minister who is neither prime minister nor minister can be created, and to grant him the rights reserved only to a prime minister. As far as Netanyahu is concerned, this means that when he becomes an "alternate", his status will be like a minister, and then the court will be able to demand Prime Minister Gantz to dismiss him. The court can also decide not to decide until just before the rotation, and the decision will be postponed for a year and a half.

And then there is the skipping Norwegian law. The issue seems to have dropped from the agenda, but now it turns out that in blue and white, suffering from excesses of ministers and the severe shortage of MKs, is returning to this folly. It is hard to believe that there will be a court that will agree to only the Gantz people from the original blue and white list. To pass any decision it wants to a limited and private cabinet, without having to monstrously inflate the number of ministers.