The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

On the way to a "French equilibrium", Netanyahu's conflict of interest arrangement will remain very small - Walla! news

2021-02-19T17:46:20.291Z


Nine months since the commitment to determine the areas in which he must not be involved as prime minister and accused of crimes, Netanyahu is dissolving the agreement that has not yet been signed. The bad news: Even if he eventually agrees to accept his clauses as they are, in case he has a majority for the legal rescue plan - it will not change much


  • news

  • News in Israel

  • Criminal news and law

The Netanyahu trial

On the way to a "French equilibrium", Netanyahu's conflict of interest arrangement will remain very small

Nine months since the commitment to determine the areas in which he must not be involved as prime minister and accused of crimes, Netanyahu is dissolving the agreement that has not yet been signed.

The bad news: Even if he eventually agrees to accept his clauses as they are, in case he has a majority for the legal rescue plan - it will not change much

Tags

  • Benjamin Netanyahu

  • The Netanyahu trial

  • Avichai Mandelblit

Daniel Dolev

Friday, February 19, 2021, 7:30 p.m.

  • Share on Facebook

  • Share on WhatsApp

  • Share on general

  • Share on general

  • Share on Twitter

  • Share on Email

0 comments

  • Suspected murder in Benjamin: woman shot dead, her husband the policeman ...

  • A resident of Jisr a-Zarqa was set on fire during a conflict between ...

  • Netanyahu trial: Prime Minister Kfar in the indictment against him ...

  • Taibeh resident detained for sexually assaulted woman extended in lobby ...

  • Dozens demonstrated in protest of the return of the accused officer ...

  • Kobi Shabtai received the permanent appointment as commissioner and was promoted ...

  • The court is discussing the extension of the detention of 11 suspects in the promotion of tenders ...

  • Haifa: A driver who ran over a suspicious pedestrian who was driving under the influence ...

  • The policeman suspected of murdering his wife Diana Raz claimed during his interrogation that he acted ...

  • Kicks and bites: Documentation of a man attacking his partner helped ...

  • 14 years imprisonment for two young men from the Krayot for kidnapping ...

  • Rabbi Eliezer Berland was sent to house arrest under the supervision of a handcuff ...

In the video: Summary of the Walla!

NEWS on Netanyahu's trial from 08.02.2021 (Photo: Connect, Roni Knafo, Shai Makhlouf and Reuters)

The Supreme Court held a hearing this week on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's conflict of interest settlement.

Yes, the same agreement that Netanyahu's lawyer pledged to 11 High Court judges to sign and regulate exactly what issues the prime minister accused of serious crimes should not touch. The same agreement that has not been signed to date.



Since it has been nine months since that commitment was made, it is worth mentioning The precedent-setting situation in which a defendant insists on remaining prime minister while conducting his trial raises grave concerns that he will try to influence the trial through the office force, and the political power that comes with it.



Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit believes, at least in theory, that to prevent this problematic situation To bind Netanyahu in a conflict of interest arrangement that would prevent him from engaging in any area that could touch the law. As stated, Netanyahu's attorney, Adv. Michael Ravillo, also pledged to the High Court that such an arrangement be formulated. But then disputes began to arise.

For more columns by Daniel Dolev

  • The covert pressure became apparent: Defendant No. 1 released the guard

  • Does deterrence justify everything?

    The High Court approves the demolition of terrorist homes

  • In front of the defendant's PR machine and the protesters' anger, the judges will look for a way out of the trap

  • The market comes to your home in a click with the smell of fresh vegetables collected from the field

Nine months since the commitment, the conflict of interest agreement has not been signed.

Netanyahu (Photo: Reuven Castro)

Dina Zilber, the deputy ombudsman at the time, drafted a conflict of interest arrangement that Netanyahu refused to sign. The


draft was significantly diluted in ping pong between the prime minister's defense and the advisers, but Netanyahu still refused to sign. Petition, so that the court clarifies that the prime minister is subject to an agreement.



In his response to the petition, Netanyahu drew a new card: he claimed that the attorney general was not authorized to formulate conflict of interest arrangements. Three months ago, High Court judges issued a conditional order to Netanyahu explain why Counsel, and yesterday a hearing was held on the subject in court.

"In the end, everything returns to the status of the ombudsman." Mandelblit (Photo: Flash 90, Olivia Fitoussi)

The debate sharpened the points of contention, and clarified the clauses that the prime minister is unwilling to commit to: the ban on interfering with the appointment of judges, especially to the Supreme Court, and the ban on interfering with the method of appointing senior law enforcement officials, or their powers.

In other words, Netanyahu is willing to accept the ban to intervene in the identity of the next Attorney General, who probably would head the prosecution during most of his trial. He just asks them to give him the powers cut, split the role and undermine his status.



"In the end it all comes back to the status Attorney General" Supreme Court President Esther Hayut told Ravillo, adding later: "This is not a normal situation of conflict of interest. There is a person here who is on criminal trial. My lord spoke about visibility, so it is also important that it (the prime minister) does not seem to be dealing with related matters. "Neither in appointments nor in the method of appointments, because it is also related to the person who is appointed."

More on Walla!

NEWS

A conversation or two with a prosecution witness?

A defendant other than Netanyahu had already been questioned

To the full article

"In the ruling of the 11 judges, you accepted restrictions," Judge Hanan Meltzer returned to the same hearing in May.

"This is a special situation (of which a prime minister is a criminal defendant). To overcome the difficulty of this special situation, you have made commitments, and now it is impossible to escape them."



It may not be possible to escape the commitment, but it is also possible to dissolve and get around.

In fact, if there is one point that was sharpened yesterday in the hearing, it is that even if the judges issue an order that will unequivocally state that Netanyahu is subject to the conflict of interest arrangement formulated by Mandelblit as written and in his own words, it will not change much.

At the end of the day, if Netanyahu has a majority in the Knesset for the legal rescue plan, she will not stop in the face of a conflict of interest arrangement.

On the way to French equilibrium

One of the issues that Netanyahu has stated from the outset that he will not be involved in in any way is the appointment of a state attorney.

At yesterday's hearing, the judges tried to understand what happened behind the scenes of the decision not to bring Amit Isman's appointment to the position of state attorney for discussion in the government.

Judge Neil Handel asked what the ruling was that the prime minister would not interfere with the appointment.

Attorney Rabello said that the decision whether to raise the name of government meeting shall be issued by the Prime Minister one of the Ministers, in this case, Public Security Minister Amir Ohana, and the Prime Minister can not even vote.



Because of disagreement within the government also closed the transfer of authority Ohana, Rabello could not answer According to the judges, was Netanyahu not involved in the decision not to name Isman in the government, but is there any difference between Ohana and Netanyahu in this case? Today, Ohana, or any other Likud minister, does not need an explicit instruction from Netanyahu to stick to the appointment of a state attorney.



And what about legislation that would prevent the trial from continuing, such as "French law"? Advocate Ravillo announced at the hearing whether The Prime Minister is willing to accept the limitations of the agreement, which prevent him from being involved in government legislative proceedings that will affect the law.

so what?

Understands well that his political existence depends on Netanyahu.

Ohana (Photo: Israel Police Spokeswoman)

Itamar Ben Gvir, who Netanyahu made great efforts to connect him to Bezalel Smutrich so that the two will pass the blocking percentage, has already stated that he intends to promote a law that will rescue the prime minister from the threat of justice.

Suppose that Smutrich and Ben Gvir do succeed in entering, and complete Netanyahu's missing fingers for the 61. Coalition. After all, the next day Ben Gvir will submit, at least according to his statements, the bill.

The fact that Netanyahu will not take part in the legislative process will not change much.



This situation is reminiscent of an antitrust term.

Suppose a particular market is completely controlled by two large companies.

Each can lower prices to take over the other's market share, but there is another option: the two companies will understand that if they maintain a high and identical price level, each will maintain its own market share and continue to make a profit.

Coordination of such a move is criminal, but sometimes need not be coordinated.

Each company understands on its own what it needs to do to save it a price war that it may come out of tooth and nail.

Only the public loses and continues to pay high prices.

In antitrust this situation is called "cartel equilibrium".

In the case of the Israeli government, it might be called "French equilibrium."

In the role of the bargaining chip: Syrian shepherds

It was announced yesterday that Israel has released two Syrian shepherds in exchange for the return to Israel of a young woman who crossed the border into Syria.

Which of course raises a number of questions, and especially what did two Syrian shepherds do in Israel's hands?

Israel is not allowed to kidnap Syrian shepherds even if they crossed the fence by mistake (and it is not certain that this time it happened) and hold them as bargaining chips.

This question was decided in the High Court two decades ago, when Israel sought to hold as bargaining chips some Lebanese citizens who belonged to Hezbollah.



Those Lebanese were convicted in Israel of belonging to the terrorist organization, but Israel continued to hold them without trial Matan regarding Ron Arad. The High Court rejected this practice, and ruled that it is not possible to hold an administrative detention of a person who is not dangerous.



In response to the ruling, the Knesset enacted a law that allows the state to detain anyone who has a reasonable suspicion that he is an "illegal fighter" - that is, a fighter of a terrorist organization, who is not an enemy soldier under international law.

After 14 days, he must be brought before a judge who will approve his continued imprisonment.

Were the Syrian shepherds held by Israel on the grounds that they were operatives of a terrorist organization, and hence illegal fighters?

Were they held by Israel under another law?

Were they brought before a judge?

All of these questions are currently left unanswered.

  • Share on Facebook

  • Share on WhatsApp

  • Share on general

  • Share on general

  • Share on Twitter

  • Share on Email

0 comments

Source: walla

All news articles on 2021-02-19

You may like

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.