America is in the midst of a constitutional reckoning on presidential immunity which exists because, in part, of the importance of not impairing the boldness of the president. On the other side of the globe, though, Prime Minister Netanyahu this week is sitting in a courtroom testifying in a trial against him while also directing the Israel Defense Forces in a seven-front war against Iran and its proxies. Talk about the boldness of a leader.

Mr. Netanyahu has been in court this week even while running the war in Syria. The Times reports that Mr. Netanyahu in court appeared “determined to transcend” the Tel Aviv courtroom to which he was confined. He declared that “I am shocked by the magnitude of this absurdity. I am the prime minister, I am running a country, I am running a war. I am not occupying myself with my future, but rather with that of the state of Israel.”

In American constitutional terms, he is stating his intention to “take care that the laws” — and the war — “be faithfully executed.” The Israeli prime minister, who possesses both legislative and executive authority, is, if anything, even more responsible than the American president for leading his country. This is not to exonerate Mr. Netanyahu  — or to convict him. It is to note the, to use his word, “absurdity” of a premier being dragged into court. 

The Times relates that while Mr. Netanyahu was examined and cross-examined the “prime minister’s aides approached the stand several times to pass him notes, apparently about matters of state. At one point during the morning session, the trial was briefly paused to allow Mr. Netanyahu to deal with what he said was an urgent matter.” This hardly seems like a way to run a war — or a trial or a country. War trumps nearly everything.

It was Justice Scalia who wrote of the need to preserve the “boldness of the president,” to which we might add — the prime minister, too. Our Supreme Court has described the duties of the president as defined by “unrivaled gravity and breadth,” and no less are the responsibilities of the premier of the Jewish state, even if the system of government varies. One Israeli official tells us that the sight of Mr. Netanyahu on the stand while directing the war is “surreal.” 

Mr. Netanyahu made that point in court. Some of the charges relate to accusations that he bestowed regulatory favors and other benefits in exchange for, among other gifts, cigars. He testified that “sometimes I even indulge in a cigar, although I can’t even finish it all at once, because I’m having so many meetings and briefings.” A consensus is growing that Mr. Netanyahu’s determination to continue the battle contributed to Syria’s liberation.

One need not be a partisan of either Trump or Mr. Netanyahu to perceive the need for some manner of immunity. Chief Justice Roberts writes in Trump v. United States that “the Court cannot afford to fixate exclusively, or even primarily, on present exigencies.” Similarly, during oral arguments in that same case Justice Neil Gorsuch vowed to create a “rule for the ages.” The logic of immunity comes into focus on both sides of the globe.