Supporters of Mandelblit for the deal will point out that the main goals of the indictment and trial were always to invalidate Netanyahu’s conduct with the media.
By YONAH JEREMY BOB, JPOST Jan 6/22
Likud head Benjamin Netanyahu at his party faction meeting, December 13, 2021. (photo credit: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM/THE JERUSALEM POST)<
Although there are a myriad ways to analyze whether Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit’s formula for a plea deal with former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu is the right one, there are at least two legal and legal-political arguments which stand out.
One is within the perspective of the legal community.
Would the mix of a certain conviction for fraud and breach of public trust in Cases 4000 and 1000 along with a finding of moral turpitude ending Netanyahu’s political career, but without a bribery conviction and without any jail time, justify foregoing the uncertainty and destabilizing influence of continuing the current trial?
The second has a legal flavor to it as well, but is mixed with politics because it looks at the perspective of the country as a whole.<
Would the above formula really end the debate about whether the trial against Netanyahu was legitimate and whether he was corrupt, or would it feed permanent uncertainty on the issue?
Within the legal community, the question essentially comes down to what is better for the “public interest” as defined by statutes, court decisions and custom.
Supporters of the deal will point out that the main goals of the indictment and trial were always to invalidate Netanyahu’s conduct with the media and with tycoons, as well as to remove him from politics so as to end any continued potential corruption.<
As time went on and Netanyahu turned the trial into a basis to attack the basic legitimacy of the legal establishment, it also became important simply to win any conviction to suppress his attacks, and bolster the rule of law.<
From this perspective, putting him in jail was a goal, but only the third or fourth goal of many.
In that sense, Mandelblit’s formula would fulfill most of the main purposes, save the country from continued tumult, allow the warring camps to move on and remove the possibility of a disastrous acquittal.
Critics of the deal will say that the trial is going well so that Mandelblit should be going for a “knock out” punch that includes a bribery conviction and jail time, and that legally destroys any remnant of Netanyahu’s claims against the legal establishment.
They will say that Mandelblit and the prosecution should trust the courts to convict based on the evidence that has been brought to bear and not worry so much about the in-between phase where the trial is ongoing and there is some uncertainty.
Further, they will be furious at the idea that Mandelblit would close Case 2000 entirely, which former state attorney Moshe Lador once said was a bribery case worth the equivalent of one billion shekels, because it was about winning the premiership.
Much of the legal community may understand that Mandelblit is pulling out a number of legal wins here, but this is only the breakdown of views within the that community.
Within the broader view of the country, Netanyahu may come out looking much stronger.
At the end of the day, all that many average citizens understand is: jail or no jail.
If there is no jail, no jump suit, no moment of complete surrender and disgrace, then Netanyahu may be able to promote himself as the victor.
Yes, there are those who hated Netanyahu before the case and believed he was guilty as sin for every piece of the indictment, if not more.
And yes, the average citizen will see that Netanyahu was ousted from politics and that this is different from Shas party leader Arye Deri’s plea deal in which he can remain in politics and only needs to resign temporarily from the Knesset.
But there were many who never lost respect completely for Netanyahu so much as they thought he needed to move on for the good of a deadlocked country.
If Netanyahu highlights that there were three bribery cases from the police, which turned into one bribery and two minor fraud cases in Mandelblit’s hands, which turned into zero bribery cases and two minor fraud convictions in the court’s hands – he will be able to convince many average citizens that he came out ahead.
Depending on what limits the potential plea deal might put on him, he may even be able to argue that he still does not believe he did anything wrong, and merely admitted to the minor charges in order to save the country further distractions or to “spend more time with the family.”
The High Court of Justice will probably see the deal as a vindication of the legal establishment because former chief justice Aharon Barak supports it.
But much of the general public does not spend much time thinking about Barak and will see that the entire Israel Hayom-Yediot Aharonot Affair and the idea of media bribery has dropped out of the narrative.
So the legal establishment itself will probably be split by Mandelblit’s formula, but its top echelons will feel they have secured and returned the public’s faith.
Significant sections of the swing-voter public, on the other hand, may not see it the same way.
@Sebastien Zorn
The whole of the Jewish Agency was dominated by the “left” before the war (WWII), so what?
It may give you a sense of satisfaction to know that you have found the culprit, and…?
You feel better when you know whom to hate?
The so-called “right” in Israel also wholeheartedly supports the two-state Final Solution but they do it covertly.
The politicians play the voters like a violin by offering them false dichotomies to fight over and thus controlling them.
As long as they fight each other, they are distracted from the real aims of the politicians and they cannot focus on where the problem really lies, what is to be done to solve it, and on actually doing something constructive instead of hating each other’s guts.
@Reader It’s not even just the High Court. After being defeated at the ballot box in the 70s, the left infiltrated and took over every corner of the military and legal system. Wrap your brain around that! They have a mania about the Two State Solution despite all evidence. Have you seen the latest, that Olmert wants the Netanyahu family evaluated for insanity? Shades of Brezhnev. Wrap your brain around that.
@Sebastien Zorn
I don’t see how your citing of a response from the Civil Administration proved your point about the High Court but the problem goes way beyond the judicial system.
I have come to realize that nothing has changed there since the times of the Mandate (for a 100 years) except for the advancements in technology and an increase in the number of Jews – Israel does have a Jewish majority now – maybe I am too pessimistic.
Read The Lone Wolf by Shmuel Katz – you will come to the same conclusion.
I don’t see the point in searching for the guilty party if no one is willing to do anything to actually fix the problem (a suicidal/homicidal (vs. the Jews) behavior of the Government of Israel), and by “fixing the problem” I don’t mean standing in the streets with signs and slogans.
@Reader Your citation proves my point.
https://www.regavim.org/youre-a-jew-and-an-arab-has-stolen-your-private-land-forget-about-the-rule-of-law/
@Sebastien Zorn
Look up Regavim.
The outdated laws in Judea and Samaria FAVOR ARABS and discriminate against Jews.
This is a huge problem that most (even Israeli) Jews know nothing about.
The High Court may be a problem but the roots go much deeper.
Another problem is that Israel redefined itself as a ghetto country which needs the Big Brother’s protection and is certainly not suited for all the Jews in the world to move in and live there.
As long as Israel embraces this mindset, no reforms will help.
In fact, if it doesn’t change soon, we may be looking at the end of the Jewish State.
@ Reader That’s true but proof of Jewish ownership is routinely ignored by the High Court favoring Arabs who never actually owned it! The court is pretending that all Arabs have collective rights and ignoring individual rights. It’s behaving like a Soviet court not the court of last resort for disputes.
““The High Court does not accept evidence and arguments in these cases. Two lawyers for leftist group Yesh Din are able to set the agenda for the High Court, and turn it into a leftist agenda.”’