Israel Democracy Lies in Peril In Coming Vote

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun

In a week and a half, Israel’s polling stations will open and Israelis will elect their representatives to the Knesset for the fourth time in two years. As was the case in the last three elections, the upcoming elections revolve around one issue — Israel’s legal fraternity.

All aspects of public life in Israel today are dictated by the attorney general and the Supreme Court, which have devoured the powers of the Knesset and the government. Over the years, the legal fraternity has acted through judicial and bureaucratic fiat to cancel the checks and balances on its power.

Today, the attorney general and the court justices determine their own powers. Not surprisingly, as far as both are concerned, their powers are unlimited.

Whether the issue is deciding who is a Jew, public funding of cultural institutions, public health policy, land use, economic priorities, open fire orders, immigration policy, counter-terror policies, or other questions from the mundane to the existential, the only decision makers in Israel are the attorney general and the Supreme Court justices. Elected leaders are, at best, advisors.

To preserve and protect their powers, the attorney general and the justices have the state prosecution. The attorney general’s role as head of the state prosecution gives him the power to strike terror in the hearts of Israel’s elected leaders. They know that he holds the power to open criminal probes against them whenever he wishes.

The very existence of this threat generally suffices to convince a majority of politicians to keep their heads down and loudly extol the “rule of law” – that is, the unlimited power of state lawyers – as the guardian of Israeli democracy. Politicians who have spoken out against the legal supremacists have invariably paid the price.

This brings us to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Although substantively, every election since April 2019 has revolved around the unchecked powers of the legal fraternity, the media have presented the elections as referendums on Mr. Netanyahu.

While the pronouncement is a distortion of reality, it isn’t entirely ungrounded. It is not Mr. Netanyahu’s record that is being judged. As far as the anti-Netanyahu media are concerned, the less his record of achievement is discussed, the better.

Rather, the media is able to cast Mr. Netanyahu as the central issue of the elections because he is the current target of the legal fraternity’s continued efforts to seize all governing powers from Israel’s elected leaders. Every pathology of the legal fraternity’s unchecked powers is present in the campaign it is waging against Mr. Netanyahu.

Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit is waging an unlimited war against Mr. Netanyahu because he recognizes that Mr. Netanyahu’s political fortunes will determine the legal fraternity’s future. If Mr. Netanyahu prevails, the legal fraternity will be stripped of its unchecked power. If he is defeated, the fraternity’s control over the country will be institutionalized.

Mr. Netanyahu’s opponents on the Right don’t see things this way. Both Yamina chairman Naftali Bennett and New Hope Party chairman Gideon Sa’ar insist there is no connection between the legal fraternity and its war against the premier. Both men claim to support comprehensive legal reform and both say that such reform can happen without reference to the fraternity’s war against the prime minister.

Mr. Sa’ar underlined this point this week by announcing that he is “considering” supporting a law that would give the attorney general the power to fire the prime minister by compelling a prime minister to resign if the attorney general indicts him. Mr. Bennett says he supports proposed legislation that would give criminal immunity to serving prime ministers, but would not apply the law to Netanyahu.

Messrs. Bennett and Sa’ar start each discussion of legal reform by insisting Mr. Netanyahu has no credibility on the issue. For decades, they note, Mr. Netanyahu blocked efforts to rein in the legal fraternity. And they are right.

Not only did Mr. Netanyahu sit on the sidelines as the unelected lawyers seized ever-wider powers from the Knesset and the government. He also did nothing as successive attorneys general targeted politicians for destruction through frivolous criminal probes.

Mr. Netanyahu voiced no objection as now-President Reuven Rivlin, now-Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, and then-ministers Avigdor Lieberman, Avigdor Kahalani, Raphael Eitan, Yaakov Neeman, Haim Ramon, and Tzahi Hanegbi were brought before prosecutorial star chambers.

Only now, when the legal fraternity Mr. Netanyahu protected has come after him, Mr. Netanyahu has suddenly become a champion of the reforms he blocked for years.

Messrs. Sa’ar and Bennett are right to say that Mr. Netanyahu’s sudden desire for legal reform is based on his personal interest. If Mr. Mendelblit weren’t seeking to destroy him, he would have continued to block all reform efforts.

But the fact that Mr. Netanyahu is an opportunist doesn’t make Messrs. Bennett’s and Sa’ar’s substantive claim — that you can separate legal reform from Mr. Netanyahu’s legal woes — correct. To the contrary, they are entirely wrong. You cannot separate the two.

To be clear, there is nothing reasonable about Mr. Mandelblit’s prosecution of Mr. Netanyahu. In stark violation of Israel’s Basic Law, the criminal probes of Mr. Netanyahu were initiated without Mr. Mandelblit’s written authorization. And it was all downhill from there.

The central charge in the indictment, “bribery,” relates to non-criminal actions that Mr. Netanyahu undertook. Specifically, Mr. Mendelblit claims that Mr. Netanyahu’s efforts to receive positive coverage from a media outlet owned by a personal friend of his was solicitation of a bribe.

And when his friend’s media outlet published a couple of supportive stories, Mr. Mendelblit maintains, his friend paid a bribe to Mr. Netanyahu. In other words, Mr. Mendelblit invented a new form of bribery, not mentioned in Israel’s criminal code or the criminal codes of any other democracy.

The implication of Mr. Mandelblit’s determination is not simply that Mr. Netanyahu is being railroaded. It is far broader than that. His invention of this new form of bribery transforms the professions of journalism and politics into criminal enterprises. To pursue Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Mendelblit has turned criminal law and criminal procedure on their heads.

Mr. Mandelblit’s predatory obsession with Israel’s elected leader has served not merely to put the fear of God into Israel’s politicians. He has used his outrageous campaign against Mr. Netanyahu as justification to expand his own powers beyond anything imagined in law. Citing Mr. Netanyahu’s scurrilous indictment, he seized the government’s power to appoint the chief prosecutor and barred the prime minister from being involved in the selection of the police commissioner.

Mr. Mandelblit has similarly used his legally groundless indictments to take over Israel’s political life. Among other things, Mr. Mendelblit held a primetime press conference to campaign against Mr. Netanyahu and announced Mr. Netanyahu’s indictment while the premier was meeting with the United States president in the White House. Mr. Mendelblit has even used his prosecution of the premier to seize the power to decide if Mr. Netanyahu may form a government.

Mr. Mandelblit’s behavior is the reason for Israel’s now two-year political deadlock. After his illegally initiated probes of Mr. Netanyahu destabilized the government and the political world, Mr. Mendelblit used the instability he caused to expand his powers.

The only way politicians will dare to take action to restrain the powers of the legal fraternity is if the fraternity’s power to retaliate by opening criminal probes against them is revoked. So the first step the next Knesset must take is to restore the substantive criminal immunity of Knesset members.

In 2005, the Knesset stood the immunity law on its head. Until then, the law provided automatic substantive criminal immunity to all lawmakers for actions they took while serving in elected office. Under the amended statute, lawmakers have no immunity unless the Knesset Ethics Committee grants it.

Obviously, the only lawmakers who will ask for immunity are those that are facing indictment. In other words, the changed law empowered the attorney general to open criminal probes against lawmakers at will.

The lawmakers amended the law because together with the justices, the then attorney general waged a massive campaign, enthusiastically supported by the media, to force them to do so — in the name of the “fighting corruption.”

Shortly after the amendment passed, the floodgates opened. Successive attorneys general massively expanded their criminal investigations and indictments of lawmakers and ministers. Almost every politician who tried to limit the powers of the legal fraternity found himself under investigation. Since the 1990s, every sitting prime minister has been placed under criminal investigation. Four justice ministers have been indicted.

If the next Knesset adopts Messrs. Bennett’s and Sa’ar’s position and tries to advance legal reform without regard to Mr. Netanyahu’s trial, their efforts will quickly come to naught.

With or without Mr. Netanyahu, they will still need to begin their efforts by restoring the Immunity Law to its original wording. The only way to deny Mr. Netanyahu the protection of a restored immunity law would be to determine that the law doesn’t apply to actions taken before the amendment comes into force.

But if the lawmakers so determine, then their amendment will be rendered irrelevant from the outset. After all, the attorney general will be able to simply open investigations regarding actions all the lawmakers undertook before the amendment. Once this becomes apparent, all thought of legal reform will disappear faster than you can say “subpoena.”

But assuming that lawmakers figure out a way to give themselves immunity while leaving Mr. Netanyahu’s head on the chopping block, what impact will that have on the governing powers Mr. Mendelblit has seized? Will he no longer be empowered to haul journalists and editors into police interrogation rooms for publishing nice stories about politicians involved in clipping his wings? Will Mr. Mendelblit retain the power to appoint the state prosecutor?

Moreover, if they leave Mr. Netanyahu hanging, why would his supporters support their efforts at legal reform? How can they get a majority of Knesset members to support legal reform without Mr. Netanyahu’s loyalists on board?

Messrs. Bennett and Sa’ar are right that the only reason Netanyahu wishes to reform the legal system is because his survival depends on such reform. But they are equally, if not more cynical than he. They are hoping that Mr. Mendelblit’s war against Mr. Netanyahu will remove the leader they cannot defeat at the polls and so clear the road for them to rise to power. What they refuse to see is that if Mr. Mendelblit succeeds, all future elections will be irrelevant.

Mr. Netanyahu’s self-serving position provides the Knesset with an unprecedented opportunity. Thanks to Mr. Mendelblit, there is solid majority support among members of Knesset for comprehensive legal reform. The job of lawmakers committed to such reforms — including Sa’ar and Bennett — is to join forces with the lawmakers who want to stop Mr. Mendelblit’s railroading of Mr. Netanyahu.

Together they can do what lawmakers have been afraid to do since the outset of the so-called “judicial revolution” in the mid-1990s. They can restore the powers of the Knesset and the government by passing and amending laws to restore checks and balances on the judiciary and subordinate the attorney general and the state prosecution to Israel’s elected leaders.

________

Ms. Glick, an Israeli journalist, is author of “The Israeli Solution: A One-State Plan for Peace in the Middle East.” This column was originally published in Israel Hayom.


The New York Sun

© 2024 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use