Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's opponents have been trying, with considerable success, in recent years to portray him as an enemy of the judicial system and as someone who is working to weaken it in order to entrench his rule. But not every successful campaign has its origin in truth, because in fact the opposite is true. Throughout his public life, Netanyahu took care to fortify the status of the Supreme Court, maintained its power and prevented repeated initiatives to weaken it.
As a disciple of Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Netanyahu saw the judicial system as a balancing force at a time when he, together with the Knesset and the government, had to lead the country together and find a common path to make the right decisions for the citizens of Israel, despite sometimes conflicting agendas. He believed this with all his heart, even when the court or the attorney general made his decisions difficult and often caused political turmoil and even security difficulties.
In the shadow of the rejection of the State Prosecutor's request: Hearings in Case 4000 continue // Archive photo: Yoni Rikner
Something cracked in his fervent belief when the investigations against him began. The prime minister does not need the verdict to know whether he took bribes or whether he committed fraud and breach of trust. He knows very well what was there. With Milchan, with Elovitch, with Noni Mozes. And when he saw before his eyes the files being sewn together and an entire system mobilized to tell a story that, as far as he was concerned, never existed and was not created in order to remove him from power, he realized for the first time that there were other motives in the system, which he sanctified and guarded. and extraneous considerations. And that, apparently contrary to what he thought, not everyone there is an innocent person who only wants the good of the country.
Recently, Netanyahu shared these sentiments with some of his associates. In doing so, he explained why today, unlike in the past, he supports changes in the judicial system, and understands that there are some things and procedures that must be corrected in it. At the same time, he said, it must be done in measured steps and with great thought. Netanyahu believes that there are many good people within these systems and that the destruction and destruction of the system must not be brought about, but only repaired. That the great power held by individuals will be reduced and more balanced. Netanyahu's remarks were reinforced this week by the sudden backlog of events in his trial, which called into question the motives behind his prosecution and the terrible weakness of the cases, he feels, for which he is currently on trial.
Within a week, it became known that the judges in the case had informed the prosecution that they would have difficulty proving a bribery offense in Case 4000 even before the defense witnesses were heard. The judge in the Bezeq case, Michal Agmon-Gonen, hinted at where she was headed when she told the prosecutor's office, "I pinch myself and look at the cover of the case, because I don't feel like I'm in a criminal case."
Added to these was the testimony of Arnon Milchan, which seems to mostly reinforce Netanyahu's version, the judges' statement about the weakness of Case 1000, and the spies that erupted from the mouth of former Police Commissioner Roni Alsheikh, who showed that he estimated that the trial would not reach the current stage in which it currently stands, but that Netanyahu would retire much earlier, that is, proof of the thesis of the sewn files. When that's the case, it's no wonder Netanyahu is closing out one of his most successful weeks. He looked smiling and relaxed. Both in the personal conversations and consultations in which he participated, and from the Knesset podium, where he gave his "A Tale of Five Balloons" speech, cheerful and smug.
The big question currently hovering in the political system, and especially in the Justice Minister's circle, is whether the success in the trial will make Netanyahu want to continue fixing the system – in other words, continue with the reform – or, on the contrary, decide that the system is already correcting itself on the fly, and that is exactly what has been done with him, and therefore the need for reform is decreasing and weakening.
In the absence of an outstretched hand
To Yariv Levin, the answer is clear. He didn't need Netanyahu's trial to get evidence to fix the system. At the consultation meeting on Sunday, which was also attended by Ministers Dudi Amsalem and Ron Dermer, Levin demanded that everything continue to move forward, especially with the change in the Judicial Selection Committee. He sees this as a strategic need, the core of reform. He does not intend to convene the current committee even after the Knesset chooses the representative of the coalition. Even if he is forced to do so by the High Court, judges he does not intend to make such a choice.
But Netanyahu insists on rejecting. Only after the High Holidays will the issue be discussed in the Knesset. Levin will have to make do at this stage with narrowing the grounds of reasonableness. Even the commission of inquiry into the Pegasus affair is being delayed by the justice minister. Let them not say that since he has already received two elements of the reform – reasonableness and the commission of inquiry – it is possible to close the event and go home. It is precisely in this context that the person pushing for the establishment of the commission of inquiry is Netanyahu, in order to correct some of the flaws in the system that he learned about from his investigations.
Others in the coalition also see the developments in Netanyahu's trial as the red carpet on which the reform is headed. "It's an egg that lays golden eggs," said one of the coalition's reform leaders. Thanks to what is revealed there, he explained, it is easier for us to market our moves. One of his examples was the refusal of legal adviser Gali Bahar-Miara to go along with the judges' statement and delete the bribery clause, which strengthens her image as a full-fledged opposition to the government and its leader.
Senior Likud officials this week dealt quite a bit with the question of whether the apparent disintegration of Netanyahu's portfolios could lead to a change in the structure of the current coalition. The current government is not good for Netanyahu. He is not used to being the left-wing benchmark, and it is clear that he is tired of cleaning up after ministers from other parties who make what he perceives as extremist statements. Like Ben-Gvir's "Run to the Hills" or Smotrich's "Erase Huwara." Nor does he like being in the position of alienated leader in the United States and Europe, and knows that as long as the two men and their friends are there, the chances of him receiving an invitation to the White House will remain small.
On the other hand, the boycott of Netanyahu is all about the trial. Benny Gantz and Yair Lapid's only justification for dragging Israel into election after election campaign was their pledge that they would not sit under Netanyahu when he was indicted. Netanyahu is still officially indicted, but the feeling is that this will not remain the case for long. What's more, sitting in opposition for four years doesn't sound like a particularly tempting plan. Therefore, they thought, perhaps we are approaching a crossroads where the combination of interests will lead to coalition changes. Netanyahu will bring in the state camp and move Ben-Gvir – or completely or at least from the influence he has – and of course the legal reform will go to the dustbin of history.
Despite some logic in the move, it is estimated that it will not materialize. Because it's not really just the indictments, it's the extreme mistrust. Just last week, Gantz and Netanyahu blamed each other for blowing up the talks at the president's residence, and now they will sit arm-in-arm together? Not going to happen. Netanyahu has a hard time with Ben-Gvir's statements and Smotrich's actions, so it will probably continue to be difficult for him.
DIP alert
This week, Yariv Levin announced a commission of inquiry in his office to examine the deficiencies found by the State Comptroller in the DIP, especially the inherent conflict of interest when the Department for the Investigation of Judges is within the State Attorney's Office and subject to its authority. The conclusions of the committee, headed by the Director General of the Justice Ministry – Yariv Levin's man – and Justice Oded Mudrik, whose position on the matter is also known, are as if they were already written in advance.
MK Moshe Saada, Photo: Oren Ben Hakon
The conclusions, which will be formulated one way or another, will speak to the need to separate the DIP from the State Attorney's Office and grant it powers and teeth that it does not have today. The political conclusion of the committee's conclusions will be to pass as soon as possible the law of Moshe Saada, a former senior PIU official, that the department should be removed from the State Prosecutor's Office and that the DIP should be allowed to investigate the State Attorney's Office itself. As far as the top prosecutors are concerned, Levin's committee is a ticking time bomb.
The political conclusion of the committee of inquiry into the deficiencies of the DIP will be to isolate the department as soon as possible and allow it to investigate the State Attorney's Office as well. As far as the top prosecutors are concerned, this committee is a ticking time bomb
Therefore, for many weeks, Bahar-Miara has been trying with all her might to prevent its establishment. She knows full well what an earthquake awaits the organization she is in charge of, if Saada's law is passed. Therefore, she hastened to announce the establishment of an internal investigation team on her behalf, hoping that Levin would find it difficult to rule out his conclusions. It didn't work. Levine insisted on an external team. Bahar-Miara tried to arrange for her subordinate, Gil Limon, to be the team leader. Levine agreed to be part of the ensemble, but left control in his hands when he appointed the CEO as chairman. Relative to those in charge of enforcing the law and investigating the truth, the attorney general has done quite a bit to keep this matter in the dark.
The prime minister's speech to the Knesset was hardly interrupted by the opposition, unusual since the protests erupted. Although he devoted much of his speech to mocking them with graceful rhyme, the party leaders and their soldiers sat, silent and listened. Like the protests in the street, so in the Knesset, the opposition leaders failed to convince the masses that it was not they who blew up the talks at the president's residence, and that reducing the grounds of reasonableness, which Supreme Court Justice Solberg, Gideon Sa'ar and even Aharon Barak spoke about, is the end of democracy.
No law, no order
Instead of the protest becoming more massive, it becomes more extreme. And when there aren't enough people, the few who are left have to make more noise. As time passes, the protest takes on violent, brutal lines. The former senior officers, who encouraged rejectionism and threatened that the reform would dismantle the people's army for it, have already intensified the message even further and are now talking about civil disobedience and breaking the law.
Two of them, Ehud Barak and Yair Golan, were notified that the police had begun investigating their case in preparation for opening an investigation. The problem in moving the investigation forward will be when investigators are forced to explain exactly who these two influence. Both were ejected from the political system after the public that elected them by mistake threw them out of the way.
While the prime minister has already addressed the issue of refusal and condemned it, the defense minister and the IDF leadership, like last time, continue to hesitate. As in the last determination that signing petitions, letters and publications calling for refusal to enlist is not refusal, and only soldiers who do not actually report will be dealt with. That decision could boomerang back to the military. A call for non-conscription is a call for breaking the law. Burning tires outside the home of the justice minister in Modi'in and blocking roads are also illegal.
In the past, the distinction was easier. There are organized demonstrations, those for which police permits are obtained in advance, and there are disturbances of the peace. In the current protests, the boundaries have blurred. It began with the weekly mass descent to Ayalon, and continued with a handful who decide to block a road in Modi'in and create a fire there. The army and police contain the events when it comes to protests against the reform, but undermine their own trust in the eyes of others.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us