The unresolved debate over former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's potential plea deal with the State Attorney's Office focused this week solely on the question of moral turpitude. Apparently, not only is the issue of turpitude not anchored in law and is dependent on the moral view of each respective judge, senior legal system officials have also tied the question of turpitude to the defendant's political positions toward the legal system itself. And yet, those (on the Right) who understand the turpitude clause is just another legal tool in the overall tool kit being used to carry out a political coup, are – even unintentionally – also making the same mistake and playing by the same rules of the game and using the same frame of discourse as determined by Netanyahu's detractors.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
The commencement of the trial, for the sake of exposing the system's inherent ills and injustices – is of utmost importance. At the same time, however, the claim that a plea deal will stain Netanyahu's legacy, or heaven forbid erase it – gives false credence to the narrow legal narrative as the end all and be all. Netanyahu's legacy is greater and stronger than any legal perspective. We must not, errantly, partake in efforts to rewrite history.
Let's assume for a moment that Netanyahu sees his trial to the very end and even that the verdict completely vindicates him – will those same people who have shouted "moral turpitude" and cried "bribery, breach of trust, and fraud" for the past four years change their minds? The question is rhetorical, of course. The submarine story is a clear example. Even after the police investigation concluded unequivocally that Netanyahu had nothing to do with the matter, those same conspiracy theorists refused to accept the decision and continued searching for another avenue through which to harm him, this time through a commission of inquiry. Because the persecution of Netanyahu, after all, didn't begin with this indictment and didn't start this past decade. Netanyahu was labeled a "dangerous man" in 1988 by Yossi Sarid in a Haaretz article, even before his political career had significant traction. But the potential that he could one day become the leader of the nationalist camp made him obviously dangerous.
The current attempt to establish turpitude is just another means of destroying his public image, which has thus far failed despite the immense pressures brought to bear on the public over the years. Because when it comes to the person who turned the State of Israel into a diplomatic, military, and economic power, there is only one story. One legacy. A legacy of strength. There isn't enough space on these pages to detail all of his accomplishments, but I will list a few. In the economic arena, Israel for the first time since its inception entered the prestigious club of the 20 leading economies in the world. Within a decade, Israel went from depending on Egyptian gas to supplying gas to Egypt and Jordan, and is already on course to ship gas to Europe. Meanwhile, Israel has become a high-tech and cyber superpower. And above all else, the country completed its transition to a free-market economy. In the diplomatic-security sphere, Israel has doggedly spearheaded the fight against Iran, through all channels and on all fronts. Netanyahu reduced the "Palestinian problem" to pre-Oslo proportions, and signed four peace accords that together paved the path to nothing less than a strategic revolution. He also forged new international alliances in Europe, South America, and Africa – making Israel a regional power.
This legacy – which has affected every single home in Israel, looms large over every diplomatic meeting and is hailed by leaders across the globe. This cannot be tarnished by any amount of "turpitude" engineered through legal acrobatics. Because we are here to document it and tell the story, as it is.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
