Toward the end of the arguments before the 11 High Court justices, the attorney for the petitioners started to make an election speech based on inflammatory claims about a collapse of rule of law, law enforcement being trampled, and various other lofty arguments. The petitioner warned the judges about what might happen if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were to form the next government and serve as its leader. According to the attorney, the events of the past few months would be peanuts compared to what would follow. "The fortress will come down!" she warned.
Chief Justice Esther Hayut stopped the flood of words, calling "populism."
"The Supreme Court is not a fortress," Hayut said.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
That is an important, correct observation, and it's good that it was stated but the Supreme Court's rulings this past year have only fanned the flames of the "Anyone but Bibi" camp, and the High Court is to a large extent responsible for the theater of the absurd currently running between its walls.
A full day of arguments by the petitioners could have been summed up in one sentence: the Supreme Court wants to replace the MKs in the legislative branch and pass a basic law that would prevent Netanyahu from forming a government.
All the fuss stressed the precipice to which the High Court justices have brought the country. The petitioners explained pompously how the justices needed to act in order to secure the desired results. They sprinkled legal jargon around the hall of justice: "Model of judgment," "indirect attack," "constructive steps," "core basic values," etc.
Throughout the entire day, the petitioners never answered one fundamental question: what exactly are the legal grounds for their petition? Unfortunately for them, the lawyers representing the legislative body, the President's Residence, and the head of the executive branch announced simply that the court must not intervene in the decision made by members of the legislative branch. It was a constitutional political decision that has nothing to do with administrative issues, and therefore should not be evaluated by the criteria applied to other affairs having to do with administrative decisions.
It was so frustrating to hear the head of the High Court Petitions Division, on behalf of Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit, making legal arguments that went wide of the mark. Unlike the legal advisors for the legislative entity and for Netanyahu himself, Mendelblit gave his opinion, which was that Netanyahu can form a government with some fancy administrative stepping. Along with that, he tried to keep the sword of an upset over Netanyahu's head, hinting that the opinion was temporary and might wind up changing.
Months ago, when the question was placed before him, Mendelblit knowingly chose not to present the opinion that allows Netanyahu to form a government. Now we all know that the attorney general chose to keep the power of threat close to the prime minister. In so doing, Mendelblit allowed the "Anyone but Bibi" camp to incite the public and the media against Netanyahu for months.
According to a report by Gidi Weitz in Haaretz, Mendelblit recently explained that he has recently felt that people are listening in on his phone conversations, and behaves as though he is under surveillance. He hinted that Netanyahu wanted to remove him from public life, and think that it would be dangerous for the country if Netanyahu remained in power because he will work to smash the legal and justice systems.
Obviously, Mendelblit is suffering from severe vertigo. The attorney general would do well to give back his keys, and sooner rather than later.
