Would Mandelblit’s deal with Netanyahu be the right choice? – analysis

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.

 Likud head Benjamin Netanyahu at his party faction meeting, December 13, 2021. (photo credit: MARC ISRAEL SELLEM/THE JERUSALEM POST)

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.

January 17, 2022 | 56 Comments »

Leave a Reply

50 Comments / 56 Comments

  1. @Sebastien Zorn

    The reason the High Court has to make decisions on Judea and Samaria is because Israel’s law is not (or very rarely) applicable in Judea and Samaria.

    Judea and Samaria are still ruled by the Ottoman and Jordanian laws and by the Defense Ministry regulations.

    It will take a lot more to change that than setting up a special court.

  2. @Reader It goes beyond Netanyahu. Remember this? Obviously, nothing came of it, as usual. The Court has its leftist friends in the Knesset like Lapid who have consistently blocked reform.

    Shaked: Take Housing Issues Away From High Court
    Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked has a suggestion: Establish a special court to deal with housing disputes in Judea and Samaria.

    In the wake of the demolition of the Draynoff Houses in Beit El, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked has a suggestion: Establish a special court to deal with housing disputes in Judea and Samaria, as opposed to giving the High Court sole jurisdiction over the matter.

    “The system is broken,” Shaked said on Thursday. “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.”

    With that, Shaked added, she had great respect for the Court, and that many of its decisions were “groundbreaking” in a very positive way. Nevertheless, she said, the High Court, which rules on matters of state, civil rights, constitutionality, and other matters is no place for petty disputes about whose deed of sale or contract was the more accurate one. “In Ra’anana, they send cases like these to the local civil court, not the High Court,” said Shaked. “Judea and Samaria should not be any different.”

    The reason it is different, however, is because the ultimate authority in the region is not the Knesset, but the IDF and the military government, which is not empowered to rule on matters of land ownership. Thus, all cases in which Palestinians dispute the ownership of land that Jews seek to build on – and vice versa – end up in the High Court, which is the court of last resort for everyone.

    Shaked proposes setting up a special court which will be empowered to rule on land disputes in Judea and Samaria, relieving the High Court of the burden, and allowing judges to focus on the specifics of cases, instead of the “greater issues” and matters of state, such as the extent to which Israel should allow Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria, she said.

    “Such cases must be heard in terms of their specifics, with witnesses and evidence relating specifically to the issue of rights and ownership,” Shaked said. “We will work to set up such a court system.” According to Shaked, the idea was not actually her own, but that of former High Court Justice Edmond Levy, who had written about the matter years ago.

    https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/198824

  3. @Sebastien Zorn

    It was Barak who made the Court a biased leftwing institution that arbitrarily makes and strikes down laws

    If Barak is the source of this evil, why did Netanyahu allegedly repeatedly pleaded with Barak to intercede with Mandelblit on his behalf (which Barak finally did)?

    Out of despair?

  4. @Sebastien Zorn

    I suspect the plea deal is a trick.

    Then let him keep fighting in court, it’s his decision.

    Also, you left out the third option: which is that he is being not only falsely accused but accused of things that aren’t even crimes in a democracy!

    He is not fighting specifically those who falsely accused him, he is smearing the whole Israeli justice system which is a bit too much to wrap one’s mind around.

    What is considered a crime in any given country depends not on the type of government this country happens to have but on the set of laws of that country.

    Maybe Israel happens to have laws where it is illegal to bribe politicians, or for the politicians to bribe other people, I don’t know.

  5. And my understanding is that this show trial is scheduled to go on for years. A lot can happen between now and then and Bibi, luke Trump, is a genius at thinking outside the box and recognizing opportunities as they arise.

  6. @ SEBASTIEN-

    I know it’s enjoyable to show conclusively (to any normal person) that an oversize square peg, will not fit into a small round hole (both wooden)), But you’re WASTING YOUR TIME.

    It’s like trying to convince a Jew-Hater to become a Zionist, in fact, the latter is easier..

  7. @Reader I don’t think you read the Glick article. She is quite detailed in her substantiation and you don’t answer anything she says. It’s not a matter of her speculating. She reports on the trial and you would have to call her a liar to refute her damning conclusion. But, you have no basis for doing so. You don’t know anything about it, personally. Witnesses were tortured and then still exonerated him!
    To quote the great 21st century Philosopher and statesman, Joe, umm, umm something: “C’mon, Man!”

  8. @Reader

    It was Barak who made the Court a biased leftwing institution that arbitrarily makes and strikes down laws, declaring that the Basic Laws were the Constitution and the Court should practice Common Law in the 1990s. He abolished the concept of standing, saying that the Court could rule on anything and on anyone’s behalf, even if they weren’t a party to the dispute. He created a legal quasi-oligarchy. Same time as Oslo was forced down the throat of the Israeli public.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharon_Barak

    And, personally, I suspect the plea deal is a trick. Netanyahu would be unwise to accept it. If they can get him to admit wrongdoing, they will break any agreement they make and nail him to the wall.

    Also, you left out the third option: which is that he is being not only falsely accused but accused of things that aren’t even crimes in a democracy!

  9. @Reader You asked a very interesting question. When did Netanyahu first challenge the legal establishment’s hold on power? Anybody?

    Netanyahu posed a threat to “democracy,” by Mandelblit’s telling, because he intended to restore the government’s power to appoint justices and the attorney general, and to impose limits on the powers of the state prosecutors.

    Glick, ibid.

  10. @peloni

    There are 2 opinions:

    1) Netanyahu is the best, etc., etc., and anyone who dares to say anything against him is a traitor, etc. He is surrounded by enemies who conspired against him and who want his demise and he is bravely fighting them.

    2) Netanyahu has a mixed record, he often says one thing and does another, he is very adept at making himself look and sound good no matter what he does, and his main focus is himself and his political career.

    He overreached himself and committed a few acts that got him in trouble with the law (not unusual for Israeli politicians).

    There is no conspiracy, the case should proceed and all the witnesses should testify.

    ———————————————————————————————————

    We will never know what is really going on there but based on his record as a politician and whatever info I can get, I tend to go with the second opinion.

    As far as my “Freudian” remark – I made it because it seems to me (I noticed it awhile ago) that the fighters for Bibi are subconsciously motivated by more than mere search for truth.

    When people merely search for truth, they try to stay calm and stick to the facts.

    They don’t freak out and start climbing barricades for their favorite who they endow with almost superhuman virtues and abilities.

  11. The latest – with some interesting corrections.

    BREAKING NEWS
    Netanyahu, Mandelblit to have mediation over plea deal dead-end – report

    By JERUSALEM POST STAFF
    Published: JANUARY 21, 2022 21:34

    Benjamin Netanyahu and the State Attorney’s Office will request the Jerusalem District Court to hold a criminal mediation between the two parties after plea deal negotiations stalled, N12 reported on Friday night.
    In addition, N12 reported that negotiations between Netanyahu and Attorney-General Avichai Mandleblit started over five months ago, despite the recent reports that have suggested talks began because Mandelblit is due to end his tenure as A-G at the end of the month.

    https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-694210

  12. @Reader

    Caroline Glick is extremely biased… [and] needs a Freudian psychologist to deal with her obsession.

    Freudians, eh? It is low sport to suggest that the desire of the law to be employed with a blind application to all men equally is due to a psychological break with reality. You can do better than this and I suggest you try.

    Your attempts to selectively suggest Carolyn’s support of Bibi warrants psychiatric therapy, says more about your own obsession than is worth commenting on Carolyn or others who happen to disagree with you. Carolyn is a advocate of what she sees as beneficial to the state, as are we all. For example, I honestly have a significant disagreement with her on the issue of Arab citizenship as her solution for the TSS, but I would never suggest it was due to a psychotic need of therapy, any more than I would suggest my own disagreements with you or others are based on such a basis as you suggest. I know you are quite displeased with ad hominy comments, so I would simply suggest to you that you just made one against her, and it simply undermines any fair basis of your argument, if you actually had a fair basis to your argument to begin with.

    Most reasonable people, who do not have an ulterior motive involved – such as using legal tactics to pursue political objectives as you are doing – would expect the law to be practiced according to legal precedence, and not to be abused to overrule the public’s choice of leadership. Such actions as you might support are severe betrayals of society by those empowered to protect us all, and yet choose to set separate standards and enact special laws for certain people, or even a single person, no matter how vile you or others might define them as being. It is a vile abuse of power, based on arbitrary legal standards and motivated out of personal and political objectives which should be held as intolerant to all men and an aberration to the laws that are meant to govern us all equally. In a just world People who would use such a second set of legal standards may have a psychological deficit worth exploring, but their actions towards arbitrary legal standards is a breach of good governance and a betrayal of legal standards and they should be prosecuted for both offenses to society. When you mix the law with politics, it can only lead to a political show trial and this is among the merits with having Justice dispatched blindly, without secondary motives or it is simply a ritual performance as we have seen with Bibi.

    You say Carolyn’s argument is wrong, forget she made the comment. Without your expert diagnosis of her mental state, examine her statement and tell us why her statement is in error. If her argument is unsound, explain that. Explain why the law should be allowed to be newly interpreted by Mandleblit who has testified of his obsession with bringing Bibi to ruin, and why this new legal interpretation should allowed to only be employed to target and prosecute the very object of Mandelblit’s maniacal obsession and no other. Is this your interpretation of how the Jewish State should exercise law? Is this how you would care to have the law interpreted and directed against you or your loved ones, or even your enemies? How can such a low standard of law be acceptable to anyone, I do not know, but for the current conversation, simply explain to us how this abuse of power is tolerable to you. And let us leave the counter-babble of psychiatric motivations to those who are incapable of better expressing themselves more credibly than perhaps you and I and others on this site are capable of doing with ease.

  13. @Sebastien Zorn

    Forgot something.

    You are saying that

    this is all about the left wing legal fraternity holding on to the power they have usurped since Aharon Barak’s legal revolution.

    This is the same Aharon Barak who responded positively to Netanyahu’s pleas to help him with his case by talking to Mandelblit and who started to oversee his plea bargain negotiations?

    I would love to have enemies like this!

  14. @Sebastien Zorn

    I believe that Caroline Glick is biased because she sees things that are not there.

    I kind of like conspiracy theories but the one about the whole Israeli judiciary hating Netanyahu and wishing to get rid of him is too much even for me.

    If they hate him so much, why have they waited for 15 years to get rid of him?

    I don’t go for the Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative, Democrat/Republican, etc. stuff because this kind of thinking is a result of divide-and-rule brainwashing.

    Most posts on this blog seem to be about WHOSE FAULT ALL OF THIS REALLY IS!!!

  15. @Reader Why do you believe Caroline Glick is biased and why do you believe the former attorney general isn’t given that this is all about the left wing legal fraternity holding on to the power they have usurped since Aharon Barak’s legal revolution. Glick was no kneejerk supporter of Netanyahu though, like Bennett and Shaked, she once worked for him. In fact she ran for the Knesset on the Yamina line before their betrayal.

  16. @Sebastien Zorn

    Caroline Glick is extremely biased.

    If Netanyahu’s sentence is no longer than 3 months, the 7-year exclusion from political life doesn’t apply even with “moral turpitude”.

    I suspect that this is the aim there so his supporters may still have a reason to rejoice.

    I think someone like Caroline Glick needs a Freudian psychologist to deal with her obsession.

  17. @ SEBASTIEN-

    I’m so glad you posted Glick’s report again. People seem to have forgotten or not absorbed it, some wear blinders so that they can’t read it. Others ignored it. You should re-post it every month.

    So what about these stories that Netanyahu is dickering over a plea bargain, with Mandelblit demanding the inclusion of “moral Turpitude”. Id it fake news??

    I can’t count how many times, when Netanyahu’s trial and supposed guilt came up here, that I capitalised about all forgetting that Mandelblit began the slide with his spurious charges, and the subsequent multiple elections. That he was the criminal etc.

  18. @Reader You wrote:

    He offered to do things that would bring big profits to someone in exchange for positive media coverage.

    Actually, he didn’t.

    The Ugly Truth Comes Out About Netanyahu’s Trial | Opinion
    CAROLINE GLICK , AUTHOR AND SENIOR COLUMNIST, ISRAEL HAYOM
    ON 12/14/21 AT 6:30 AM EST

    The corruption trial of former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the Jerusalem District Court has been ongoing for the past two months. Things are not going well for the prosecutors.

    Israel’s state prosecution submitted a list of 333 witnesses. It frontloaded its best ones. So far, eight have taken the stand. And all of them have obliterated the prosecution’s case. Long-time Israeli jurists and former prosecutors attest that this is the worst presentation of evidence they have ever seen.

    For the past three years, Israeli Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit and his colleagues built their case for indicting Netanyahu—a long-serving, successful and popular prime minister—by claiming their star witnesses had given them proof that Netanyahu is corrupt and dangerous.

    Through illegal, selective leaks from investigation rooms and prime-time press conferences, the state prosecution insisted that the witnesses had given them incontrovertible evidence that Netanyahu received a bribe, in the form of positive coverage from a news website. Mandelblit claimed that in exchange for the bribe of positive coverage, Netanyahu compelled regulators to provide the owner of the website with a sweetheart deal worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

    But over the past two months, as one allegedly “star” witness after another took the stand, each rejected Mandelblit’s contention. Netanyahu, in fact, received hostile coverage from the website in question; his political rivals received supportive coverage.

    As for the regulatory favors Netanyahu supposedly afforded the owner of the website in exchange for positive coverage, here too, the witnesses have shattered the narrative. The alleged whistleblower, who purportedly made the claim, testified that Netanyahu had no role in the regulatory apparatus in question. Netanyahu, in short, never asked for anything.

    Last week, Netanyahu’s former spokesman and one of his most intimate advisors, Nir Hefetz, took the stand to testify against Netanyahu. When Hefetz signed a deal to become a state witness against Netanyahu in March 2018, Mandelblit and his associates presented the development as nothing short of an earthquake. With Hefetz’s decision to turn on his former boss, they had Netanyahu dead to rights.

    After Hefetz turned against Netanyahu, the prosecution’s public campaign against the premier went into high gear. Leaks from interrogation rooms turned into geysers. Friendly journalists were briefed, and they duly reported on Netanyahu’s criminal mindset. The police inspector general weirdly alleged that Netanyahu hired private detectives to tail his police investigators.

    As Netanyahu appeared increasingly vulnerable, his government also gradually destabilized.

    Hefetz’s testimony last week was a watershed event in the trial for two reasons. First, he laid bare the prosecution’s obsession with “getting” Netanyahu. Under oath, Hefetz described the ill-treatment he received from police investigators at the direction of state prosecutors. Hefetz were arrested in the middle of the night in a Hollywood-type scene, with armed officers nearly breaking down his door. He was held in harsh conditions for two weeks. He was denied food, medicine and sleep. He was placed in a flea-ridden cell. He was housed with violent, convicted criminals and terrorists. Investigators threatened to destroy his family and coerced him into firing his attorney and hiring one they chose for him.

    All observers of Hefetz’s testimony have agreed that the treatment he received was illegal. Some have alleged that it was torture. Notably, the prosecutors did not dispute Hefetz’s claims, which he made while he was under direct examination by the very prosecutors his testimony was supposed to assist.

    Second, in glaring contrast to the hype that surrounded his testimony, like his fellow “star” witnesses, Hefetz shattered the prosecution’s case. Hefetz said Netanyahu did not intervene with the regulators on behalf of the website owner; that he received hostile coverage from the website; and that he didn’t even consider the website important.

    Hefetz’s revelation of his treatment at the hands of the prosecutors showed the public that the prosecutors would stop at nothing to incriminate Netanyahu. Hefetz committed no crime whatsoever, yet prosecutors had him locked up and treated like a terrorist until they broke him. And for their efforts, Hefetz didn’t deliver Netanyahu—he exonerated him.

    Even before the prosecution began making its case in court, the legal foundations of the indictments were already flimsy. Mandelblit indicted Netanyahu on four counts in three charges. The most serious count is bribery. As top U.S. attorneys argued in a pre-indictment hearing Mandelblit held for Netanyahu, there is no basis in Israeli law, or in the laws of any other Western democratic legal system, for asserting that positive coverage of a politician by a media outlet is a “bribe.” The assertion itself serves to criminalize both politics and journalism. By defining media coverage as bribery, Israel’s prosecutors arrogated to themselves the power to indict any politician and any journalist whose underlying positions they oppose.

    Netanyahu is also charged with breach of trust for allegedly discussing a deal for positive coverage with the owner of Israel’s second-largest circulation newspaper, Yediot Ahronot. Yediot has led public campaigns against Netanyahu since he first entered politics in the 1980s. On the other hand, it has provided lavish coverage to Netanyahu’s political rivals in its long-standing effort to oust him from power.

    The deal the two discussed was one in which Yediot would provide Netanyahu with more positive coverage and, in exchange, Netanyahu would appeal to the owner of Israel’s largest circulation newspaper, Israel Hayom, which was supportive of Netanyahu, and convince him to limit his circulation for the benefit of Yediot. (Disclosure: In addition to Newsweek, I also write regularly for Israel Hayom.) But Netanyahu never agreed to the deal. And nothing ever came of it. In the meantime, in 2013, Bennett and 42 other members of the Knesset voted in favor of a bill, prepared by Yediot’s lawyers, that would force the outright closure of Israel Hayom. All 43 lawmakers received positive coverage from Yediot. In the wake of the vote, Netanyahu dissolved his government and the Knesset, precipitating new elections, in order to block the bill from advancing through the legislative process.

    Whereas the prosecution indicted Netanyahu for breach of trust for speaking to Yediot’s owner, it refused to even open an investigation against the 43 Knesset members.

    Finally, Netanyahu was indicted for breach of trust for accepting gifts from his friends. This, despite the fact that Israeli law permits politicians to receive gifts from friends, and simply requires politicians to return the gifts or pay a fine if the attorney general determines that they weren’t actually “gifts” from “friends” under relevant law.

    The problem with Mandelblit’s determination of Netanyahu’s relations with his friends, like his other determinations in relation to the criminal probes he ordered against Netanyahu, is that his motives were always suspect. His obsessive hounding of Netanyahu reeked of ulterior motives.

    Last Tuesday, Mandelblit revealed his motives to the public with the broadcast on Israeli television of the transcript of a conversation he had a month ago regarding the Netanyahu trial.

    Mandelblit maintained that Netanyahu had to be ousted from power because he was “a danger to democracy.”

    Netanyahu endangered Israeli democracy, in Mandelblit’s view, because he sought to impose checks and balances on Israel’s legal fraternity—the Supreme Court justices, the attorney general and the state prosecution office. For the past generation, all three arms of the legal fraternity have arrogated to themselves the powers of the executive and the legislature. Through fiat, they effectively canceled all legislative and executive checks on their power. The most powerful means that the justices and lawyers have used to effectuate their power grab has been their seizure of power from the government to appoint themselves.

    Netanyahu posed a threat to “democracy,” by Mandelblit’s telling, because he intended to restore the government’s power to appoint justices and the attorney general, and to impose limits on the powers of the state prosecutors.

    Mandelblit referred to the legal fraternity’s fight with Netanyahu as a “war”—indeed, as an existential conflict. His decision to indict Netanyahu was necessitated by the exigencies of that war.

    In his words, “This [indicting Netanyahu] is a decision I had a difficult time with…we suddenly found ourselves in a war over the legitimacy of the attorney general, the DNA of the Jewish people and the State of Israel.”

    By Mandelblit’s telling, in this fateful struggle, God almighty himself carried the day. “The grace of Heaven saved us from Netanyahu.”

    Mandelblit’s shocking statement proved that his case against Netanyahu has nothing to do with the law. It is entirely political. Israel’s attorney general led a coup of lawless attorneys whose single-minded goal was to oust a democratically elected prime minister to preserve the extra-legal powers the legal fraternity has seized over the decades.
    https://www.newsweek.com/ugly-truth-comes-out-about-netanyahus-trial-opinion-1658609

  19. So now Reader is a pisychiatrist.

    But I’m glad that he has at last come to his “senses””, and understood what I was saying. I capitalised almost those very same words a couple of times and then deleted, because of a possible deleterious effect on the Reader. eGott Zu Danken.

    Glad that’s FINISHED…..!!

  20. So what don’t you just shut up…. … I also can say what I want, you too.

    The above is completely contradictory because you are governed by your emotions.

    OK, I WILL say anything I want but I WILL NOT respond to you again.

    DO NOT EVER RESPOND TO ME, I will ignore your responses on every thread.

  21. @ READER-

    Thank you for your superfluous “explanation”, completely unwanted…

    Warn me…against whom, or what…?? I didn’t regard it as a warning, only a comment against ad hominem attacks, in capitals denoting “strong”. That’s his prerogative;

    In fact, when you speciously attack my reason for supporting the PM and also call me a cultist, THEY are ad hominem attacks. LOOK IT UP… I didn’t bother to whinge or shed tears,

    So what don’t you just shut up. This nonsense about nothing can go on for the next year with NO result.

    If Mr..Belman choses to think so that’s his privilege as he is the publisher and can say what he wants. I also can say what I want, you too. It’s an open forum. He can chose to ban or reprimand anyone he wishes to and that person can protest.

    I hope you understand my meaning, I mean my “Finish” word. .!!

  22. @Edgar G.

    just go whinging again to Mr. Belman, as you did before

    Actually, I DIDN’T complain to Mr. Belman.

    He noticed your posts himself and he felt compelled to warn you.

  23. @ READER_

    Ahhh…Nebbuch. Well just go whinging again to Mr. Belman, as you did before. It may work again. and he’ll protect you. Shed a tear, and tell him “i don’t like it”.

    Again…Finish
    But this time I won’t apologise for hurting your tender feelings.

  24. @Adam
    Exactly correct!!

    The use of such legal maneuvers, should they be rewarded with either a guilty verdict or a plea bargain, will empower these non-elected bureaucrats with the legal leverage to corral and control any future or current national leaders. To be able to successfully convict and overthrow a man as politically successful and accomplished and personally popular with the public as Bibi, will both empower the State legal establishment and discipline future leaders to understand the limits of the freedom of the PM regardless of the public’s support. It is not a stretch to suggest that the legal threats of criminal activity held over Sharon as leverage of control would no longer be needed as the Bibi-only statute could always be employed to pull a similarly independent PM towards an understanding that when punishment is employed in the absence of any certain crime, criminal behavior is no longer necessary to remove a PM from power, and a lack of criminal behavior is also no longer a necessary asset to maintain a PM in power, free from persecution (read as prosecution).

  25. The real issue in this case is the prosecution and the courts misuse of the bribery laws to remove from office and jail a politician that they dislike because they don’t agree with his politics. This is a gross abuse of power.

    In all democratic countries, including Israel , it has always been an accepted practice for politicians to demand political support from private businesses in return for their support for the private businesses’ financial-commercial interests. Rightly or wrongly, this has always been the case since the first election was held in the first country (Britain, I think) that allowed legislators to be elected and private citizens and businesses to make campaign contributions. To suddenly claim that this is a crime when one particulat politician whom the judicial establishment hates is “caught” doing it, is not only selective and discriminatory prosecution. It is also using a “novel theory” of what constitutes bribery, as a pretext to prosecute him.

    This is a very serious abuse of power. The people who should be prosecuted are Mandelblit, his entire prosecution team, and the fifteen judges of the “High Court of Justice,” not Bibi.

  26. @ TED-

    You are a lawyer…so… I have carefully read over every post, every phrase and I find that there are 3 direct “accusations”. these 3 items are not ad hominem attacks.

    I accuse him of being “human”. I accuse him of being a “ferd” which in my terms means a “donkey|”. and I accuse him of being “simple”.

    The contexts need to be considered. In all three contexts, there is not a lead in to an hominem attack. To “wonder” and to “think” regardless of the subject term, are not ad hominem attacks.

    He felt I was insulting him, so I immediately sincerely apologised and concluded the discussion. before you stuck your oar in to the already calm waters.

  27. @ TED-

    You are totally misinterpreting an ordinary casual, throw-off conversational remark, as an attack. You are wrong. It’s not my fault that the guy has no sense of humour whatever, and acts blind, deaf, and cumb, to logic, reason, and fact. I could have resented being called a “bibi-cult(ist)”, but I turned it aside. In truth it was very offensive to me.

    It is also offensive that you accuse me of an ad hominem attack. You fail to notice the very last word of my post ..It says.. FINISH..

    This means..”let us finish all this nonsensical exchange”.

  28. @READER-

    Ah…so you’re human after all. I thought you were slow, but I see you’re sharp enough to know you’re being insulted.

    Like” the wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion”….. I didn’t think I was insulting you, merely stating facts. But….Hello Lion…!!

    At very least, you should explain fully what is a “bibi-cult”….I’ve never heard of this, and as you seem to know…do me the favour.

    And….If you feel insulted, I apologise, sincerely in deed and fact. Finish.

  29. @Edgar G.

    Quit insulting me.

    You have no right to insult people just because they are not members of your Bibi-cult.

  30. @ READER-

    Sometimes I wonder if you have occasional mental retardation spells, but I really know that you haven’t

    How do I KNOW what you think. ??? EVERYBODY on THIS SITE knows what you think ….FERD… !! You post about it all the time, every time Netanyahu’s name comes up, and even when it doesn’t, you make sure that it does. Your bitter hatred of the man, who doesn’t know that you exist, and who has never done anything against you, could be called glaringly INCANDESCENT-except that it’s lasting…..!!

    As for why the “courts” have accepted hearing the case…..THIS is one of the times when I think you are having “spasms”… Almost everybody on this site (and I believe even you) KNOWS that this unelected, self-appointed legal “system” is as corrupt as the Mafia, even more, because they never hid it, and the Israeli Legal System tries to,…unsuccessfully I know but…….Maybe you don’t idolise the court system, but you could fool anyone into believing you do..where Netanyahu is concerned.

    You are such a simpleton. I am old enough I’m sure to be your father, and by the way you think, probably your great-grandfather, and for me to “idolise” ANYONE living, is so “funny”, that I wouldn’t take the chance of reading this trash whilst eating, in case I’d choke from laughing.

    True, I idolised my parents and siblings……but only when I was grown up enough, and acquired the understanding of what they went through to care for us and keep us safe and well clothed and fed.

    And when I married and had children myself, it became even more wonderful to me. They lived through the 1918-19 pandemic, the Irish Civil
    War, The Depression, and being Jews in a Verbrente Catholic Jew -Hating country. And worked like dogs for US.

    And you……….!!!!

  31. @Edgar G.

    How do you know what I feel or what I think?

    Besides, I posted the opinion of Israel’s former state attorney – is he, in your opinion, consumed by hatred?

    As far as the case and the plea deal – if the charges are frivolous, why did the judge not refuse to hear the case?

    I am far from idealizing Israel’s justice system but it cannot be a total joke as you seem to imply.

    We can only guess what is really going on there.

    I think Bibi is playing the system, otherwise he wouldn’t be Bibi.

    His behavior in the last couple of years, in my opinion, shows that (consciously or not) he decided that if he goes down, he won’t go down alone, and that is what his mind has been focused on to the detriment of the country.

    My impression is that he makes a very dangerous and powerful adversary for whom ends always justify the means.

    You idolize him – OK, to each his own.

  32. @ READER-

    The charges, according to some of the most eminent Law scholars in the world ARE frivolous-and not only that, but are unknown in any country under law.. It’s your blind hatred which prevents you from accepting this. If Netanyahu is either chases out of politics or convicted it will make Israel a “shame to the nations”. Whatever you think he promised , he didn’t complete his “deal” and this has been proven.

    How do you know that, he never intended to, but wanted to see how far they would go. He DID NOT COMPLETE the “deal”. Never intende to in the opinion of most, and those are far more important people than YOU- or I.

    Reader, you really puzzle me sometimes. I have had some dreadful things done to me and mine, and yet I cannot say that I feel HATE, maybe “hate” but not HATE like you.

    My one exception is the Christian Church which persecuted the Jews through millennia and caused the always-present-everywhere baseless hatred against us.

  33. Former state attorney calls potential Netanyahu plea deal ‘shameful’
    Eran Shendar says an agreement in former premier’s corruption cases would harm the public, send a ‘terrible message’ to politicians
    By TOI staff Today, 8:56 pm [emphasis mine]

    Shendar said the talks about the plea deal had been started, apparently by Netanyahu’s side, deliberately at the last minute, just before Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit leaves his post at the end of the month and before the upcoming testimony of state’s witness Shlomo Filber.

    Analysts have said that Mandelblit’s successor would have less ability to negotiate a deal as a new attorney general.

    Shendar said a plea deal would send the wrong message to politicians.

    “In a marathon, the last mile is the hardest, so of course there is burnout, but there is a clear message here — every top politician will know that if he’s charged with a crime, the more he harms the law enforcement system or the media, the better it will turn out for him. That’s a terrible message.”

    Shendar said that if a deal goes through, Netanyahu will likely wage a public relations campaign afterward to recast himself as a victim.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/former-state-attorney-calls-potential-netanyahu-plea-deal-shameful/

  34. @Sebastien Zorn

    It’s the charges themselves that are frivolous.

    He offered to do things that would bring big profits to someone in exchange for positive media coverage.

    Maybe in the US it is OK but in Israel it isn’t?

    If the charges are frivolous, why didn’t the judge refuse to hear the case?

  35. @stevenl

    To Reader attention

    Thanks for the link, I will read the article.

    The first thing I thought about after I read your previous post was of the Netayahu-led anti-Rabin demonstrations but I just couldn’t wrap my mind around how it would have anything to do with Netanyahu’s current troubles.

  36. @Adam Dalgliesh

    pointing the finger at Israel’s corrupt and biased judicial system for framing him

    What Barak and Mandelblit are doing is the OPPOSITE of framing.

    Can you imagine an average person pleading with the former head of the Supreme Court to intercede for him with the Attorney General, and the former justice not only agreeing to intercede but also starting to monitor the negotiations?

    If the deal goes through and the judges approve it, Netanyahu will only get 3-6 months community service – I would be very surprised if the judges oppose the authority of both Barak and Mandelblit.

    ask his lawyers to fiercely cross-examine the government’s witnesses

    BTW, his lawyers are urging him to sign saying it is an excellent deal, and lawyers would (usually) much prefer to drag out the proceedings in order to make more money (and Bibi is not a pauper).

  37. @stevenl

    Does all this have anything to do with Rabin’ s murder?

    What do you mean?

    Can you be a little more specific?

    I don’t see the connection.

  38. @Sebastien Zorn

    Is it because of the way TOI asked the questions?

    Those were 3 television surveys, not TOI surveys.

    Of course, you only get answers to the questions you do ask.

    Maybe the question you mentioned wasn’t asked by the surveys because no one finds the charges frivolous.

    After all, there were witnesses who testified, etc.

  39. @Reader I find it odd that supposedly nobody just said the charges should be dismissed as frivolous in these surveys. Is it because of the way TOI asked the questions?

  40. The most recent article by Bob, who is the de facto press secretary for the Attorney General and the Supreme Court although on the payroll of JP, leads me to believe there won’t be a plea deal. If there is a deal, the trial court will refuse to accept it, and/or the Supreme Court will throw it out in response to a petition.

    Bibi is a responsible adult capable of making his own decisions. He certainly does not need my advice, and he certainly will not seek it , since he probably doesn’t even know I exist. And even if he did know me, he would also would know that I know nothing about Israeli law.

    This disclaimer over with, I think Bibi will be a fool if he accepts this plea deal.

    Bibi should face the fact that he is likely to spend many years in jail. The best he can do at this point is ask his lawyers to fiercely cross-examine the government’s witnesses, and to make a fiery speech defending himself and pointing the finger at Israel’s corrupt and biased judicial system for framing him.

    He should also demand that the remainder of the trial be televised and broadcast on radio. The court would almost certainly refuse this request, but he should try anyway.

    While in jail, he should write and publish his memoirs, as we ll as demanding a thorough reform of Israel’s thoroughly illegal and corrupt legal system.

    Doimgtime in jail can actually add to the stature of a politician who has been unjustly persecuted. It certainly helped make Nelson Mandela an extremely powerful and widely idolized man, which he wasn’t when he was first imprisoned. Since Bibi had great stature even before he was charged with crimes, his stature and influence will grow still greater if he is “rewarded” for his services to Israel with a long jail term. Eventually, his imprisonment will create widespread public outrage, and force major judicial reforms to protect politicians from partisan prosecutors and judges.

  41. Most Israelis oppose plea deal in Netanyahu trial, polls find
    3 surveys show consensus among right- and left-wingers, but for different reasons; 39% say current government should stay even if ex-premier forced to end political career
    By TOI staff 16 January 2022, 11:22 pm

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/most-israelis-oppose-plea-deal-in-netanyahu-trial-polls-find/

    I bet that if the plea deal works, Netanyahu will declare victory claiming that the justice system caved in because they knew that he was right and they couldn’t convict him in a fair trial, and he might yet file an appeal gaining more political points.

    After all, Aharon Barak said that he supports a plea deal [emphasis and comments are mine]:

    “My position is that it is appropriate to approve the plea deal,” Barak told the Kan public broadcaster. Such a deal, he said, would be “Netanyahu essentially saying ‘I admit’ to being responsible for the charges. I think that’s a very important and dramatic thing.” [why is he so desperate for Netanyahu to admit it if he is guilty as charged? Either Bibi is right about them or they are trying to save his ***]

    He told Kan that , he believed that reaching such a deal would “take the sting out of the attacks on the court system.” [the same Israeli defeatism as usual]

    Barak acknowledged Saturday that Netanyahu had asked him to speak with Mandelblit about the possibility of reaching a deal in the former premier’s graft trial.

    “I won’t deny that when I reached out to Mandelblit, Benjamin Netanyahu’s contribution to the country was always on my mind. He was one of the greatest defenders of the Israeli justice system, until his trial,” Barak told the Ynet news site.

    Barak stressed that any plea deal must include a clause that Netanyahu will be convicted of moral turpitude.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/bennett-rest-assured-government-will-not-fall-if-netanyahu-signs-plea-deal/

  42. Most Israelis oppose plea deal in Netanyahu trial, polls find
    3 surveys show consensus among right- and left-wingers, but for different reasons; 39% say current government should stay even if ex-premier forced to end political career
    By TOI staff 16 January 2022, 11:22 pm

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/most-israelis-oppose-plea-deal-in-netanyahu-trial-polls-find/

    I bet that if that if the plea deal works, Netanyahu will declare victory claiming that the justice system caved in because they knew that he was right and they couldn’t convict him in a fair trial, and he might yet file an appeal gaining more political points.

    After all, Aharon Barak said that he supports a plea deal [emphasis and comments are mine]:

    “My position is that it is appropriate to approve the plea deal,” Barak told the Kan public broadcaster. Such a deal, he said, would be “Netanyahu essentially saying ‘I admit’ to being responsible for the charges. I think that’s a very important and dramatic thing.” [why is he so desperate for Netanyahu to admit it if he is guilty as charged? Either Bibi is right about them or they are trying to save his a$$]

    He told Kan that he believed that reaching such a deal would “take the sting out of the attacks on the court system.” [the same Israeli defeatism as usual]

    “My position is that it is appropriate to approve the plea deal,” Barak told the Kan public broadcaster. Such a deal, he said, would be “Netanyahu essentially saying ‘I admit’ to being responsible for the charges. I think that’s a very important and dramatic thing.”

    He told Kan that he believed that reaching such a deal would “take the sting out of the attacks on the court system.”
    “I won’t deny that when I reached out to Mandelblit, Benjamin Netanyahu’s contribution to the country was always on my mind. He was one of the greatest defenders of the Israeli justice system, until his trial,” Barak told the Ynet news site.

    Barak stressed that any plea deal must include a clause that Netanyahu will be convicted of moral turpitude.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/bennett-rest-assured-government-will-not-fall-if-netanyahu-signs-plea-deal/

  43. Netanyahu gives approval to move forward with plea deal – report
    If Benjamin Netanyahu agrees to a plea deal in his public corruption case, he will have to leave politics.

    A lot more information here: https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-692789

    I think Bibi for his own good and future life should take the deal and stay of politics. It is also best for the country to move past this divisive issue. New leadership will take over the Likud (hopefully Nir Barkat as he is most qualified and has the best temperament). This will allow the right-wing to join forces again for the best of the whole country.