Keeping Netanyahu as prime minister ... a temporary lifeline for the Likud leader and posting the election scenario

Mohamed Mohsen Wedd - occupied Jerusalem

The decision of the Israeli Supreme Court to keep the task of forming a government in the hands of Benjamin Netanyahu, accused of corruption, and not to interfere with the terms of the agreement to form the emergency government concluded between his Likud party and the Blue and White party led by Benny Gantz, blurred the political scene in Israel.

After the Supreme Court decision that came 24 hours before the expiry of the Knesset deadline to nominate a member to form the government, Netanyahu and Gantz announced the inauguration of the national unity government for a period of four years, and a vote on it to take the oath of ministers next Wednesday, provided that Netanyahu is first in rotation of the prime minister, and Gantz as a minister For defense and as Acting Prime Minister.

The court distanced itself from deciding the future of Netanyahu's political future and granted him a temporary lifeline to remain in the prime minister despite being in the dock, with the stability of the government or the scenario of future elections dependent on developments in the judicial file and the management of his trial sessions on corruption charges that will begin on May 24.

The court unanimously responded to 11 judges' petitions against the terms of the coalition agreement and against Netanyahu's mandate to form the government, and the Israeli prosecution charged the Likud leader with treachery, corruption, and bribery.

And the court's decision kept the constitutional and political crisis that has afflicted the country for nearly two years, and it kept the door open to the possibility of heading for a fourth election in the future.

The judges stated that "any external interference in forming the government contradicts the principle of majority decision," and that "at this time there is no room for interference in the coalition agreement, but they criticized the terms of the agreement, and wrote that this was" an exceptional agreement, and some of its clauses raise legal problems and great difficulties. ".

In a reading of the Supreme Court’s decision, analysts agree that the decision of Israeli President Reuven Rivlin to refer the task of forming the government to Knesset members involves broad political appreciation, and is intended to translate the voters ’decision to support a member of the Knesset to the position of Prime Minister through the majority of representatives who support the request.

The Judicial Affairs correspondent for the newspaper "Ha'aretz" believes that the decision of the Supreme Court judges is at the heart of the democratic process, as external interference in this process violates the principle of the majority decision on which the system of government is based.

The Judicial Affairs correspondent explained that the judges ’legal conclusion does not reduce the charges pending against Netanyahu due to the violations and violations he committed, and the difficulty resulting from his tenure as prime minister accused of criminal offenses, as the court’s role is limited to examining the reasons for the judicial review provided for by law.

Therefore, Bendel says, "When the court refuses to interfere with one of the appointments or others, it should not be understood from him that the appointment decision does not contradict the law. Therefore, the Supreme Court's decision as a result of the legislation in force, and therefore Netanyahu's conviction of the charges or his innocence is left to the course of the court's deliberations. ".

With regard to the items contained in the coalition agreement dealing with future legislation, the Judicial Affairs Reporter clarified that the Supreme Court ruled that it does not interfere in legislative procedures before their completion, but judges did not exclude future interference in the legislation related to the coalition agreement if presented to the Knesset, which keeps the The fragility of the government coalition.

Questions and problems

Therefore, the political affairs analyst for the Yedioth Ahronoth website, Moran Azoulay, believes that the Supreme Court has made it clear at this point that there is no need to seek judicial rulings in the coalition agreement that deals with future legislation in the Knesset, but without considering that the Supreme Court’s decision gives approval and legitimacy to items The coalition government agreement raises many questions and legal problems.

The Political Affairs Analyst believes that the Supreme Court’s decision kept the door open for future intervention on the terms of the coalition agreement and legislation if it is presented for a vote on the Knesset, which means the possibility of judicial settlement, deciding some problematic clauses, and opening the coalition agreement again.

This means, according to Azoulay, that the stability of the national unity government will remain fragile and the continuation of its mandate will be dependent on Netanyahu's decisions, considerations, and developments in his trial file, and therefore any future intervention by Supreme Court coalition will give Netanyahu an opportunity to dismantle the government and head again to the polls.

For his part, Yossi Verter, the party and political affairs editor, believes that the Supreme Court’s decision to keep Netanyahu with the task of forming the government, despite the corruption charges he faces, is consistent with the Likud leader’s interest in maintaining his position and shielding himself from the trial.

Ferter explained that Netanyahu's considerations come in isolation from the state of emergency, the Corona crisis, and the formation of a government of national unity, as he seeks to stay in power and escape the trial, and thus the stability of the government and the possibility of heading for other elections will depend on Netanyahu's desires and the extent of his judicial case.

He considers that prior to the commencement of his trial on May 24, Netanyahu hired the Supreme Court's deliberations on the legality of his mandate as a suspect to form the government and the legal terms of the coalition agreement between Likud and Blue and White, and he instructed his ministers to take a threatening language against the country's highest legal institution and limit its powers, With a view to delegitimizing the trial and strengthening his position as Prime Minister.