Israeli officials, in trying to convey this country’s realities to American audiences, often try to make things relatable.
For instance, they may say that 150,000 Israelis marching against judicial reform for 23 straight weeks is equivalent to more than five million Americans protesting in the US for nearly six months.
Or that Islamic Jihad firing rockets from Gaza into Israel would be like al-Qaeda firing rockets from Windsor, Ontario, into Detroit. Or that 452 Israelis killed in terror attacks at the height of the Second Intifada in 2002 would be the equivalent of some 23,000 Americans killed in one year by terrorists.
Using this method of explanation, opposition leader and former prime minister Yair Lapid’s testimony on Monday in Jerusalem District Court against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could be likened to former president Donald Trump testifying in a criminal case against US President Joe Biden. Since that might seem too far-fetched – as it is Trump who is currently under multiple indictments, not Biden – a more relatable comparison might be Biden testifying in a Florida court against Trump.
Either way, the image this conjures up is something extraordinary, something just not done. Indeed, according to political commentator Amit Segal writing in Yediot Aharonot on Friday, there are only two other places in the world where the head of the opposition has testified in a criminal case against a prime minister: Pakistan and Kenya.
And now, somewhat ignominiously, Israel is the third country on that list.
And now, somewhat ignominiously, Israel is the third country on that list.
Why ignominiously? Because it is not healthy in a democracy for the head of the opposition – whose job definition is to bring down the government – to testify in court against the head of that government he is trying to unseat.
Do you want to bring down the prime minister? Do it in the parliament or – as Lapid and others are trying to do now – in the street. Don’t do it through the courts.
Lapid may justifiably argue that this is not his intention, that he is not using the court to bring down a political rival. But the problem here is one of perception.
Lapid testified that Netanyahu made two brief inquiries about a tax-break law benefiting movie mogul Arnon Milchan, who had gifted the Netanyahu family cigars, jewelry and Champagne in the past.
Regardless of the specific details of the testimony, the lingering perception that will remain for many is that Lapid’s presence on the witness stand is merely a case of one politician settling accounts with another. And that is a perception that does neither the country nor Lapid any good. Ironically, it won’t necessarily hurt Netanyahu.
It does the country no good because it reinforces the impression among not an insubstantial part of the population that the judiciary has become badly politicized.
A not insubstantial part of the population believes that Netanyahu has been unfairly brought to trial, that the cases against him are political and that he is a victim of prosecutorial overreach.
A not insubstantial part of the population believes Netanyahu and the Likud when they say that since the prime minister’s opponents could not defeat him at the ballot box, they tried to bring him down in the courtroom.
This may be nonsense, and a persuasive argument against this theory can and has been made. But that is largely beside the point since a large swath of the public believes it anyway, and the image of the head of the opposition walking into the court to testify against his sworn political rival only reinforces and strengthens that belief.
Democracies are not strengthened when political opponents face off in court, not in parliament.
Lapid’s testimony on Monday, as bland as it might have been – as insignificant as it may be in the whole scope of the scores of people who have testified and are scheduled to testify in the Netanyahu cases – will not do him a great deal of good, at least politically.
The last few elections have clarified that the key to the political game in Israel is moving voters from one bloc – the anti-Netanyahu and pro-Netanyahu blocs – to the other.
Benny Gantz’s remarkable surge in the polls over the past few weeks, as indicated by Friday’s Maariv poll showing his National Unity Party increasing from its current 12 seats to 32, can be attributed to him attracting voters from two main sources. He is drawing support from Lapid, who has been criticized by many for being inflexible and forceful in his stance on judicial reform. And Gantz is also gaining the backing of disgruntled Likud voters who are dissatisfied with the current reform proposal.
The polls show that there are Likud voters out there ripe for the picking; willing to cross the line to the other side. Gantz, the polls also indicate, is a more amenable alternative for the disgruntled Likud voters. Lapid’s testifying against Netanyahu – and the perception that there is a political motivation to this – will only strengthen that trend.
Lapid’s testimony – it lasted less than an hour and was followed by cross-examination by Netanyahu’s lawyers that will continue on Tuesday – is unlikely to do Netanyahu any significant legal or political harm.
Legally, Lapid’s testimony – he was Netanyahu’s finance minister from 2013-2014 – was not the type likely to sway any one of the three Jerusalem District judges hearing this case. Because what, in actuality, did he say? That he remembers two brief conversations he had with Netanyahu about Milchan and the tax exemption, and that it seemed Netanyahu was just trying to check a box in raising the matter so he could tell Milchan he did so.
Not overly dramatic stuff. The drama on Monday was not in the content of Lapid’s testimony, but rather in the very fact that he was on the stand testifying.
But the cross-examination could tarnish Lapid a bit, because he – like Netanyahu – also had a relationship with Milchan. Netanyahu is the defendant in this case, accused of receiving gifts from Milchan in exchange for promoting legislation to help him. Netanyahu’s legal team is trying to show that Lapid, as finance minister, acted inappropriately in meeting with the movie mogul and listening to his request to look into the tax break. That is something that might hurt Lapid, not Netanyahu.
That is all in the legal realm. In the realm of politics, Netanyahu will not be hurt and could be aided by Lapid’s testimony since it will reinforce the feeling among the prime minister’s base that this is a politically motivated political trial. This will not grow Netanyahu’s base – since most people’s minds have long been made up on this matter – but it could reinforce it. And at a time when the Likud is slipping in the polls, Netanyahu will certainly welcome anything that buttresses his base.