Not because of the rupture.
The willingness of former Supreme Court President Justice Aharon Barak to get into the thick of the plea deal with Benjamin Netanyahu struck many with astonishment. In the years since the end of his term, he has been involved in teaching and research, and is moving away from the public eye.
There is, in principle, no defect in his involvement.
Netanyahu sought, through him, backing for a future plea deal, with the attorney general and with possible petitions to the Supreme Court, and Barak believed that he was doing an act that was beneficial to Israeli society, no matter how unusual.
One can like his involvement and may not like it, and see it as a kind of legitimacy for Netanyahu's destructive and cynical policy toward the court and law enforcement, but in no way can Barak's explanation as to what motivated him to support the deal be accepted.
Barak explained his involvement in the process by seeking to prevent a rift in the nation.
But he knows that we are divided, and that each half will interpret the deal in the opposite way from the other.
These will see in it a truncation of a sentence in Ivo to save those who do not deserve to be saved, and these will see in it a success of the elites to bring down their beloved leader on his knees.
The rift in the people can, perhaps, be reduced through education for democracy, for a majority decision, for standing up for minority rights.
Not by a plea deal.
I believe that Barak used the worn-out argument of "unity of the people" because it was more convenient for him to explain that he would not want to see another prime minister in prisoner uniform. Apparently, this is not a legitimate reason. His debt to society. But it can be assumed that Barak sees this as a kind of punishment for Israeli society, watching a parade of a president, a prime minister, and possibly another prison minister, and fears that Israel will be perceived as a country ruled by criminals. There was the consideration behind Barak's involvement - it's a shame he did not reveal it.
Not to reassure ThyssenKrupp. In two days, the government is due to discuss the establishment of a state commission of inquiry into the affair of purchasing the submarines and missile ships from the German company ThyssenKrupp. The most senior members of the defense establishment speak of the affair as the most corrupt event in our history. They raise question marks that ostensibly present a situation where not the security interest but the interests of favors were behind the insistence on the number of submarines and the company that would manufacture them for us. These are deals worth two billion euros, and the stories told in their context are hair-raising - including Netanyahu's willingness to put up with the sale of German submarines to Egypt, without consulting the defense establishment. The claim that a commission of inquiry should not be set up before concluding a deal with ThyssenKrupp, because the German company said that if it turns out that it is a case of corruption, will not sell submarines to Israel - is ridiculous.
When such a motive is published it may cause the German company to reconsider the deal, much more so than in a situation where a commission of inquiry is set up seeking to understand what happened here, and if necessary - to clean the stables.
It seems that this is another motive for postponing the Israeli decision, and this motive may be a desire not to upset anyone, so that doors are not closed to future political options.
If this is the case - this is a wrong motive, and on Sunday a decision must finally be made on the establishment of a state commission of inquiry.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us
