Don't let the conflict of interest arrangement confuse you - Netanyahu is responsible for the "reform", and he is the one who needs to stop it - voila! news

The settlement of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's conflicts of interest, which was ordered by Legal Adviser to the Government Gali Beharev Miara, was of course necessary, and on the other hand it was clear that it would create a perfect platform for skilled spin distributors who work in Netanyahu's service.

Netanyahu, let's recall, is completely barred from any involvement in the destruction plan of Minister Yariv Levin and MK Simcha Rothman due to his criminal trial; therefore, according to the Ha'orin spin, he should not be expected to stop the "reform." That is, if he is not allowed to advance, then he is not allowed to stop And

now to the truth. Netanyahu is indeed not allowed to deal with the content of the outline. That is, he is not allowed to agree, or not agree, to this or that compromise, neither in public nor in private rooms. For example, he is not allowed to say to his opponent Levin: 'Okay, compromise on this or that detail in the section on the committee for the selection of judges , but insist on another clause', and vice versa. Therefore, when Netanyahu approached the legal adviser to the government about this, she told him the obvious - it is forbidden.

uses the mast spin.

Netanyahu (Photo: Flash 90, Yonatan Zindel)

And having said that, it is important that there be no mistake - Netanyahu is solely responsible for this disturbed reform, and he is the one who must stop it.

Did I contradict myself?

Absolutely not, it's simple.

No legal entity will actually forbid Netanyahu to tell Levin and Rothman 'freeze the legislation and enter into long negotiations with the opposition, in which I will not be a party';

Negotiations in which the best experts will participate and in which there will be real attempts to reach a compromise (the clear limits of which will be discussed later).

No one will prevent him from suggesting that any outline should be acceptable to some members of the opposition, let's say at least ten.

If he does so, not only will he not commit a conflict of interest, but he will receive credit for his contribution to reaching historic constitutional agreements in the State of Israel (even if he was not actually a party to them).

What are the chances of that happening?

In the zero zone of course.

Netanyahu is emerging these days as one of the weakest leaders Israel has had, precisely during one of its most difficult periods.

He is off, not as coherent as he knows how to be, and above all does not take leadership where he still can.

He leaves the steering wheel in the hands of two fanatical and blind politicians, on the way to turning Israel into a non-democratic state.

Fanatics and obscurantists.

Levin and Rothman (Photo: Flash 90, Yonatan Zindel)

The President's speech to the nation was an important and appropriate leadership move, even if not all the words he uttered resonated with everyone.

It can be assumed that he understands very well, like most of us, the immediate danger that hangs over Israel as a democratic country, if the plan of destruction goes through as Levin and Rothman want.

However, he chose his words carefully to position himself as a legitimate mediator between the parties.

Makes sense.

I also thought that the walk of the opposition leaders that evening to the President's house, would not have harmed the human wall in front of the D9 convoy.

Simply because at that meeting they should have said what they were saying in their public statements anyway, and what the president actually said in his speech: the negotiations can only be promoted if the legislative procedures are frozen.

An important and appropriate leadership move.

Herzog (Photo: Government Press Office, Haim Tsekh)

Yesterday the chairman of the coalition, MK Ofir Katz, and MK Moshe Arbel announced their decision to freeze the legislation of the "Dari 2 Law" for a week, and MK Moshe Saada acted in a similar way with his bill that would make Mahesh subordinate to the Minister of Justice (Machash in the service of politicians).

I was not impressed with the freezing of these two corrupt bills, and anyone who tried to market them as a gesture of goodwill is wrong.

Although these two proposals are corrupt like no other, they are not at the core of the threat to Israeli democracy.

Indeed, in any case, Rothman and Levin's announcement was not long in coming, and stated the situation as it is, in a clear and catchy manner: "The laws that were dropped do not belong to the legal reform legislation that is being conducted in the Constitutional Committee, and were dropped according to the decision of the Knesset members proposing them. The legal reform legislation continues without a break."

The head of the opposition, Yair Lapid, offered an outline for the negotiations - a 60-day freeze on legislation for the purpose of negotiations.

I do not share the criticism against him that his proposal is intended to "derail the negotiations". The attempt to position him as a refusenik, as one who is blocking the president's efforts is a blatant spin. After all, the coalition can offer a counter outline for the negotiations in a shorter period of time.

For the time being, she does not do this, but flies forward with the legislation.

Stopping the Saada and Deri 2 legislations, which in any case were not done according to Rotman and Levin's opinion, is neither a gesture of goodwill nor a joke.

At most a distraction.

Where is the edge of the abyss?

So what compromise can be reached?

Here, too, you should mark the boundaries already.

Many who are forcibly trying to calm down, throw airy statements into the air, such as: "It is clear that Levin and Rothman will end up compromising on part of the reform, on 20% of it, 30% of it...", or: "Not everyone will get what they want in the end.. .", and so'.

You should be careful of these statements, as they are throwing sand in the eyes.

The test is simple - where is the edge of the abyss?

Both in the section of the committee for the selection of judges and in the section of the overcoming clause, the edge of the cliff is marked with a clear and bright red line.

Any legislation that leaves the selection of Israeli judges in the hands of the coalition alone, means turning Israel into Hungary and Poland - democracy on paper, but not really.

Just like any legislation that would leave the Knesset, with a normal coalition majority, the right to cancel any High Court ruling (repeal of a law, or any other ruling). Therefore, talking about "some kind of compromise" escapes the existential danger we are in as a democracy.

Where is the room for maneuver?

Change the composition of the committee as you wish, but in such a way that Israeli judges will not be appointed by politicians alone.

Regulate the relationship between the Knesset and the court as you wish, but in such a way that a coalition cannot alone overcome the court's decision.

simple.

Demonstrators on the train against the legal revolution, this week (Photo: Flash 90, Eric Marmor)

Yesterday Lapid was told that he is "living in a movie" if he thinks he will now receive a 60-day freeze.

Here, too, it's worth making a little order: we need to differentiate between a quick negotiation that will perhaps find outlines that will make it possible to reach agreements in the future, and the negotiation on a basic law: the legislation, which is the core of the president's outline.

Make no mistake, the normalization of relations between the authorities will not last a week, not two weeks, nor 60 days.

This is serious and complex legislation, which will be a central dramatic constitutional pillar for the future of the State of Israel.

And back to Netanyahu.

How can he win all this if he is in a conflict of interest?

The answer is that he cannot.

Therefore, if he had an iota of public morality left in him, he should have understood now what he did not understand until today - he must resign from his position.

If he cannot actually lead the State of Israel during one of the most difficult periods in its history, he should vacate his place.

Since we are not naive, it is clear to all of us that there is no way he will do this.

Therefore, all that is left for him is to compel Levin and Rothman to negotiate with the opposition until a broad national consensus is found for the construction of the constitutional infrastructure of the State of Israel (in which he will not be a partner due to his conflict of interest). If he does not do this, the crushing of Israeli democracy will be a disgrace On his forehead for eternity, a far worse disgrace than what will be imposed on him, or not imposed on him, at the end of his trial.

• news

• News in Israel

• Criminal and legal news

Tags

• Benjamin Netanyahu

• The legal revolution