Ten former MKs, who supported the legislation that states that the prime minister can serve until a final ruling is given, excuse why they voted for him • "I did not pay attention to this section"
Supreme Court // Photo: Oren Ben Hakun
Photo:
Photo: Oren Ben Hakon
Last week, 11 Supreme Court justices unanimously decided that Benjamin Netanyahu should head the government, despite pending a serious indictment. The judges' decision was based primarily on Article 18 of the Basic Law: The Government, which states that "the Knesset is entitled to pass most of its members in office. The prime minister convicted of the offense, and the court ruled in his judgment that it was a disgrace to her. "
Second High Court hearing // Photo: GPO
Among the outraged politicians for the existence of this section, there are also those who supported themselves with its approval when it was brought to the second and third reading of the Knesset plenary, on March 7, 2001. At that meeting, the direct election of the prime minister was revoked and the Basic Law: the old government was repealed, Direct - including this section.
The law was approved by a majority of 72 against 37 opponents, and also aroused joy and delight among MKs from the Labor Party and Meretz, who saw in the direct election law a terrible document that must be passed from the world. If indicted on serious offenses.
Most MKs who supported the law 19 years ago have since resigned from political life. 10 of them are winding down and are now looking for excuses to explain their vote.
Former Meretz MK MK Zahava Galon says "The title of this section in the law is 'the termination of the prime minister's term of offense'. I supported the law, which referred to a prime minister convicted during his term and not the current situation, which is radically different, because today Netanyahu is a transitional prime minister and has been severely indicted. Who then imagined that a bribe accused would be spectacular in asking for the state's steering wheel? "
Explanatory explanations
Former MK Raanan Cohen (Labor) said: "In 2001, we believed that values of corruption and bribery would not be reflected in the Knesset. I find it hard to believe that we have come to a sad reality that does not add respect to the Knesset and its members. None of us believed then that there would be a Knesset in Israel that I find difficult to boast. We were all wrong, believing that such phenomena would never happen. "
Former MK and Minister Meir Sheetrit (Likud-Kadima) admits: "Unfortunately, I apparently did not pay attention to this section when the direct election law was repealed. I opposed the cancellation of direct selection, and I thought it was a mistake. I remember trying to convince then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to change his mind, but without success. Later, when Sharon left the Likud and established Kadima, he regretted this move and said that if the direct election was still in effect, he would not retire.
Former MK Mossi Raz (Meretz) said: "I supported the law because of the urgent need to cancel direct elections, which has done a great deal of damage to the state. I did so in spite of the section on the Prime Minister, who I was aware of and did not agree with. No one then thought we would get to the current state. Today, it is not about the term of office of a prime minister, but of the beginning of his term, and everyone understands the difference. By the way, I do not know if a government by a defendant is legal, but it stinks. "
Former MK Colette Avital (Labor) explained that "I supported the cancellation of direct elections because I realized how much it weakened the parties and the government's governing ability. As far as I am aware, the focus was on the cancellation of direct selection, so I did not pay much attention to other issues of the law, such as the section on the resignation of the prime minister. "
"Public problem"
Former MK Avshalom Wilan (Meretz) explains: "I voted for the approval of the law because I realized that the political method of direct choice had crushed the system and created chaos impossible. Regarding the PM's resignation, I always thought the problem was public rather than legal. I never thought that a prime minister who was indicted would hold the altar horns and would not suspend himself until the proceedings were over. "
Former MK Yossi Katz (Labor) recalls that "the direct election cancellation resulted from the colossal failure of two prime ministers, Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu in the first term. We may have been mistaken for spilling the baby with the water. Regarding the resignation of the prime minister, I do not think that a prime minister is lawfully serving a MK who wants to impose a government on him. I think there is a bitter point in having a government impose on a person who behaves the way Netanyahu does, and it would have been better if the Likud would choose another person. "
Former MK Anat Maor (Meretz) is arguing that "the legal situation today is completely different from the situation in 2001. So one of the considerations before us was not to give the US Court the power to overthrow a government and determine that there will be new elections. However, when the indictment was filed against Netanyahu, he was not an incumbent prime minister but a prime minister. That would amend the Basic Law: Knesset, and deny the right of every defendant to be elected to the Knesset. "
Former MK Mohammed Barakha (Hadash) says that "the bulk of the preoccupation then was to cancel the direct election law, because it personalizes the political system. With Netanyahu, who not only clings to the altar horns, but changes governmental, constitutional and ethical arrangements, behind which is a block that made the violation of the proper order and the cleanliness values a kind of political pride. "
Former MK Ran Cohen (Meretz) recalled that, "To my memory, the main issue that concerned us then was the direct election law that failed, and we wanted to cancel it. Regarding the resignation of the prime minister, I am very sorry to have introduced such a section.