Since then, Prof. Aharon Barak has expressed his opinion in favor of a plea deal between the State Attorney's Office and Benjamin Netanyahu, the country has been in turmoil.
His proposal was attacked from right and left.
In the right-wing camp, many see the former Supreme Court president's intervention in the issue as further evidence of the judicial activism of the father of the constitutional revolution. As anti-bibi and the right as anti-lightning.
However, focusing on these aspects makes it difficult for us to examine objectively and matter-of-factly the very proposal for a plea bargain.
Among other things, in his remarks in favor of the plea deal, Barak noted the fear of a rift in the people.
This is the most convincing argument in favor of the plea deal, and not the arguments that have been more emphasized in the media, related to the defense of the justice system and to what extent Netanyahu defended it or not.
As someone who specializes in resolving disputes in alternative ways outside the walls of the court, I believe that not everything is fair.
The justice system should be restrained and humble, and admit that not every issue should be decided in court, certainly not issues that are hotly debated in Israeli society.
I strongly believe in the power of mediation and conciliation proceedings to resolve more difficult disputes than a court decision.
A dichotomous judicial decision, in which one side wins and the other loses, often only exacerbates the conflict between the two sides.
Netanyahu's trial has become a hotly debated issue, not because of Netanyahu's character, but because of the fact that his trial touches the most sensitive sadness in Israeli society, and provokes very strongly the cultural war and politics of identities that takes place within it.
The narrow legal-criminal question, that is, whether Netanyahu committed an offense of bribery and fraud and breach of trust or not, is only the tip of the iceberg of a much deeper and more acute conflict, beyond Israeli society.
Our treatment of the Netanyahu trial is like an open wound made up of intense emotions and drains into it all the rifts between right and left, liberals and conservatives, supporters of the Jewish nation-state and followers of the state of all its citizens, people of Tel Aviv and periphery.
Such a dispute should not be decided in court.
He needs another solution, which will settle the conflict and reconcile the rifts through compromise.
Judge Noam Solberg recently said that "compromise is an achievement, not a failure."
Indeed, "Compromise is perceived in our minds as something incomplete, flawed, unsuccessful, lame, requiring a waiver, something of retrospect; never in the first place and with a whole heart."
However, Solberg states, "the stigma attached to it deters us from striving for compromise, even where it is necessary, desirable and beneficial.
The late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Zacks, the former Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, included in his book "Ideas from Two Lives" the following idea: "Try to create an alliance between all the parties that will unite them around a common goal, in such a way that neither side will claim victory or feel defeated."
The continuation of the trial against Netanyahu, which could take many years, will further deepen the rifts in society.
Many members of the national camp in Israel will see the conviction of their leader as the result of ideological persecution and severe damage to their identity and feelings, while many leftists will not be satisfied with less than his imprisonment and removal from the political arena of their great rival.
It is time to mend the rifts, and create an alliance that will allow a new era of power and prosperity of Israeli society to begin.
The only way to do that is to end the Netanyahu affair through a plea deal or a pardon.
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us