A few processes are coming together ahead of the weekend. One is the start of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's pre-indictment hearing. The second is the apparently-stalled negotiations between the Likud and Blue and White. Third, the Likud is threatening to return the mandate to form a government and allow the president to assign it to someone else.
This is a situation that demands we think about what is best for Israel, and based on that direct the various processes and make them flexible – especially the legal ones. Despite the feelings of many on the Right, and maybe some on the Left, there are some who think that the results of the do-over election were good – not to say ideal – for the national camp, because they require the Likud and Blue and White to agree on a unity government.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
A government like that, as many have already realized, would be run with two people rotating as prime minister, each serving for two years. And there is no doubt that Benjamin Netanyahu should take the first rotation. It is not important that someone else will be waiting in line to serve the next two years. Anyone who is pushing for that is more interested in pushing Netanyahu out of political life than in a unity government.
In a Facebook message posted the day after the election, Professor Ruth Gabizon put down her thoughts, which sounded saner than the tangle of pressure and hysteria that characterizes most shapers of public opinion. First of all, BDS (Bibi Derangement Syndrome) in Israel must calm down. The public hasn't decided that Netanyahu must go. The attorney general, the state attorney, and their staffs must realize, as Gabizon wrote, that "even in Netanyahu's legal matters, the political system must operate wisely. Legally, he cannot be rejected as a leader after the election. The arrangement must be fundamentally political, and it's good that [the political system] be free to suggest deals that will allow for stability and not necessarily demand immediate justice for Netanyahu. That is a matter that is strictly legal, and it is vital that it not be portrayed as if it would determine whether rule of law lives or dies."
But now we have to get down to it: the prosecution in Israel has made itself into a court. Waiting for the result of the hearing is like waiting for a sentencing. The fact that this is accepted practice in this country doesn't mean that it's a process that meets democratic constitutional standards. Especially when in the last two elections, a very large sector of the public voted to reject law enforcement's stance regarding the prime minister. It's not that the public is saying Netanyahu is innocent; they are just saying that law enforcement officials must not be the ones to decide whether or not he can continue to serve as prime minister.
In Israel, a small news item on a website can be considered bribery. That is a serious ethical violation by those who are responsible for the prosecutorial process and who know that even if Netanyahu is exonerated in court, the use of a count of bribery in a case against the prime minister will mean he is finished in public life.
