After four election campaigns, a massive rift in Israeli society, polls that indicate a loss of public confidence in Israel's law enforcement systems, allegations of a judicial coup, hundreds of millions of shekels spend on investigation geared toward one thing and one thing alone – is it possible that this entire saga will all come to an end with a single stroke of a pen?
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
No decision has been made and no announcement has been issued, but the mere fact that a plea bargain in the corruption case waged against former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is even being discussed requires Israelis to ask themselves whether the state can afford to leave the biggest political-legal-media affair in its history behind it in a way that leaves so many questions open. The answer is absolutely not.
Netanyahu is in going through this process as a leader and a politician, but also as a private individual. He can, and should, manage his legal affairs however he and his legal counsels see fit. That is the most basic meaning of law and order.
In negotiating a plea deal, the private individual, however, faces the Attorney General's Office and the State Attorney's Office. No plea bargain – let alone one that would favor Netanyahu beyond any measure sanctioned by his political opponents – could solve the ailments to which the Israeli public was exposed from the moment the suspicions against Netanyahu were published, through the interrogation period, the onset of the trial and the testimonies heard so far.
A plea deal involves two parties and any plea in Netanyahu's case will only work in Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit's favor in the public eye.
Media reports suggesting that time is running out on the plea offer and that it must be inked prior to Mendelblit's departure from office, are a disservice to the truth.
The State Attorney's Office wages legal proceedings regardless of the identity of the individuals involved and those proceedings will continue if need be after Mendelblit retires. The next AG will be more than qualified to finalize any plea bargain, including removing Case 2,000 and the bribery charge in Case 4,000.
The pressure under which senior officials are on at this point to strike a plea deal underscores not only their distress but also – more so – public interest.
It would be in the public's critical interest to investigate in full the issues that rose during the investigation and the trial. Whatever is finalized in private vis-à-vis Netanyahu will have to become public and the only way to do it is by forming an independent commission on inquiry that would be backed by unbiased bodies that are not affiliated with the current heads of the judiciary in any way.
This commission should include veteran jurists and academics, who would try to find an answer to the question that otherwise, will continue to plague Israeli society: Has the Israeli judiciary pursued – in deliberate, dubious, perhaps even illegal ways – a political upset in Israel?
A plea bargain at this point is not really a "compromise" or "risk management" for either party – that argument is a manipulation that should be refuted whenever it is made in a public debate.
The great strategic achievement has already been marked: despite his immense popularity, which is still going strong according to recent polls, the cloud of suspicion and the trial have seen Netanyahu lose power. Unseating Netanyahu was at one point a leading purpose of the justice system or at least a preferred and long-awaited scenario – Mendelblit had all but admitted it at some point.
Reaching a plea bargain, however, will leave that question hanging in the air as many Israelis will keep carrying it with them. The most profound value democracy gives the citizens is the ability to elect their government – and that was taken away from them. The democratic process was violated. Is there anybody out there who seriously thinks that a plea deal would calm things down? Is there anyone in their right mind who thinks a deal won't leave its mark and cause an even bigger crisis of faith in democracy?
Israeli voters are not children. They understand perfectly well that the plea deal is a compromise. But this is the State Attorney's Office's flagship case and it involves the very core of democracy. It is unthinkable that it is the type of indictment from which an entire case or a bribery charge can just be dropped on a whim. It is inconceivable that what we have learned throughout this case about methods of investigation and the deals offered to state witnesses could just be made to go away.
What happened to "getting to the truth at all cost"? Is knowing the truth the prerogative of only one side? The fact that this aggressive power-play, which ostensibly sacrificed so many values that are at the core of the judiciary, could lead to a plea based on admitting to minor counts in the indictment, says a lot.
If Israeli society seeks to recover, then Netanyahu's personal issues will end privately. But the public aspects of Netanyahu's trial must be placed under scrutiny and that should be the opposition's mission going forward: to pledge to the public that it will not allow this to stand. That it will see to it that a commission of inquiry is set up and that all parliamentary and public means at the opposition's disposal be enlisted to this end.
The moral and historical importance of this mission cannot be overstated. This is not a gesture to Netanyahu or his supporters – if anything, it is for the next generation of national camp leaders in Israel.
In the short term, it is the only thing that would push reform in the judiciary, and most importantly – it is the only thing that could help Israeli democracy heal.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
