Last week, Supreme Court justices published their reasons for rejecting the petitions against the government's imposition of Benjamin Netanyahu and the coalition agreement. The joint decision makes it clear that, in view of the terms of eligibility laid down in the law, a pending indictment against a Knesset member does not preclude the imposition of the government and its compliance with its head. 

Although the High Court still holds the undesirable "in-service" and "discretionary" rulings, which have invalidated appointments of ministers and heads of local authorities while gnawing on innocence, which has created a reality in which the court system has repeatedly tried to oust elected officials However, with regard to the formation of the government, all judges correctly state that "external intervention in this process has a material violation of the principle of deciding the majority that underlies our system of government."

Notable in its exceptionalness, Justice Menachem Mazuz stated: "The reality that he is accused of criminal offenses in the purity of the dimensions of a government and heads it raises a public-moral difficulty that is hard to overstate. Such a reality reflects a social crisis and a moral failure of society and the political system in Israel."

I would like to protect the electorate from this accusation. First, the public knows that Netanyahu may be entitled to his trial and that he is presumed innocent. Second, the public got the impression, right or wrong, that for years they "searched" for Netanyahu and celebrated any further investigation by uniquely circular number such as "file 1,000", "file 4,000" and together 10,000 ... Third, the public read interpretations that this is not a regular charge In ordinary bribery, except to allow it, the State Attorney's Office seeks to expand the bribes' offense and set a legal precedent. Fourth, the public also knows that the offense of "cheating and breach of trust" (which is why the media is portrayed as two offenses, due to the connection) is a vague and wide-ranging offense, so it is difficult to describe a public figure who, if we examine thousands of his decisions through a magnifying glass, we cannot suspect how many Some are "breach of trust", which is not defined by law. Fifth, about half of the public believes that it is an excellent prime minister, who manages the affairs of the state well, and that he should be allowed to perform his duties and not be replaced by criminal law instead of elections. The best poll in this regard is the results of the last election.

As Justice Neil Handel noted: "Elections are the defining event of everyday politics. Democracy miraculously equates all voters - one vote for each ... It cannot be said that the question of who will be the prime minister after the election has disappeared from the eye of the voter. : That question was at the center. " But Judge Mazuz is apparently dissatisfied with the people's choice. I remembered Yitzhak Ben-Aaron's reaction to the revolution 77: "With all due respect we regard the people's decision, if that is the decision, I will not honor it." The judge's role does not place him in a position in which he is to preach a judgment: "Social crisis and moral failure of society," referring to the company in which he serves as judge.

Prof. Boaz Sanjero teaches at the Law and Business Academic Center and at Sapir Academic College and the founder of the site "Review of the Criminal Justice System"