It has been called the “Trial of the Century” – but not by me. Considering that in January 2020 nobody could predict what would befall the world with the novel coronavirus within weeks, I’m not getting into guessing games over how the rest of this year and decade will play out – let alone 100 years. Although the appearance in court of a sitting prime minister on trial for fraud, breach of trust and corruption will go down in Israeli history – whatever the end result – there are likely to be bigger stories over the next century.
Right now, the important thing to keep in mind is that Benjamin Netanyahu – like every other citizen – is considered innocent unless/until found guilty by the court. And that doesn’t mean the kangaroo court.
The rule of law is not strengthened by either the pro-Bibi or anti-Bibi camps. If there’s no need for judges to review evidence, hear witnesses or consider expert legal opinions before ruling, then it’s not only Netanyahu who has lost but the whole country. When the media act as policeman, judge and executioner before such a high-profile case even comes to court, they are saying that there’s no need for the justice system.
Given the media hype and sociopolitical pressures from Left and Right, I don’t envy the judges. Whichever way they rule, they’re going to upset one camp or the other. Too many people have made up their minds already – guilty or innocent – and are looking to the courts to validate their opinion.
Nobody can claim that Netanyahu wants to stay in office for an easy life, whatever the perks. Few people are capable of working as hard as Netanyahu – who’s just completed three rounds of elections while maintaining unprecedented international diplomatic ties, managing increased security threats, handling the coronavirus crisis and preparing for his court case. Who else could juggle the “Deal of the Century” with the “Trial of the Century,” in the words of the hyperbolists?
As I have noted before, Netanyahu is definitely obsessed by the media, but it’s mutual. Nonetheless, it’s hard to see where the prime minister allegedly bought himself good press. Indeed, among the more worrying aspects of the case are what is known in Hebrew as “hon, iton, shilton” – money, media, and political rule.
The charges against Netanyahu have been played up whereas the charges against Yediot Aharonot publisher Arnon (Noni) Mozes have been glossed over, and not just by his own media empire. The attempt to pass legislation tailor-made to close down Israel Hayom – the country’s only largely pro-Netanyahu daily paper and Yediot’s main competitor – was an assault on the free press and democracy that deserves more attention.
The Left has given Netanyahu a gift of its own – not cigars and champagne, and certainly not positive press coverage, but ample reasons for the prime minister to claim he is being persecuted rather than prosecuted. The pressure on Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit to indict Netanyahu – which included rallies outside his home and synagogue – has been tremendous. Members of the anti-Bibi brigade have proven as capable of incitement and ugly slogans and gestures as their rivals on the Right.
The constant leaks from the investigation against the prime minister should themselves be investigated. When a TV journalist is able to quote word for word the police testimony of a state’s witness, it’s not a scoop – it’s a sign that someone involved in the case wants the transcript to be known well beyond the closed doors. No wonder conspiracy theorists are having a field day. The manner in which some of the state witnesses were persuaded to turn against their former boss also raises questions. Ditto the reliability of the evidence they provided to save themselves from more serious charges.
Netanyahu hasn’t proved his innocence but he’s certainly demonstrated stamina and sticking power. Many recalled the way the old Labor regime was brought down in 1977 when people voted with their feet – all the way to the ballot box – with a mantra of “Mushchatim, nimastem,” “We’ve had it with the corrupt.” Even those who believed the cases against him would come to trial doubted that Netanyahu would arrive in court, surrounded by his security detail, as sitting prime minister.
During three elections in swift succession, Netanyahu managed to attract enough votes to keep his high position. It was a vote of confidence in Netanyahu – and for some a vote of non-confidence in the legal system, which has adopted so wholeheartedly the philosophy of judicial activism promoted by former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak.
Israelis like to refer to Mivhan Buzaglo, the Buzaglo Test: the principle that the country’s highest personages and most ordinary citizens – the hypothetical defendant Haim Buzaglo – should be judged by the same courtroom standards. Justice should not only be done, but seen to be done.
Israel has had ample opportunity to put it to the test over the years. That a former president, prime minister, finance minister, interior minister, health minister, chief rabbi, some bankers and numerous mayors are not considered above the law is something to be proud of, but it would be a greater source of pride were there not such a long list of public personages who needed to be prosecuted. Does the appearance of the prime minister in court really do the country justice?
Certainly Sunday’s events inside and outside the Jerusalem District Court looked like showdown vs showtime. The judges insisted that the prime minister come in person to hear the charges against him – and not just send a lawyer to represent him. The message was clear: We’re cutting you no slack.
Netanyahu decided if he had to have his day in court then it should start with a press conference, surrounded by Likud ministers and supporters, as the local and foreign press focused their cameras on him. “The police, prosecution, press and the Left and the legal establishment joined together to bring me down because I do not want to evacuate Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. They don’t like that I’m not a poodle,” Netanyahu declared. It wasn’t the first time he’d accused his accusers of trying to carry out a coup.
It probably won him no votes of sympathy with the three judges who are embarking on the hearings that will decide his fate. But it wasn’t aimed at them. It was a political declaration from a prime minister aware that another round of elections could be upon us before the trial ends. Who’s willing to predict when the country with its heavy and awkward unity government will next head to the polls?
Roughly half the country’s voters made it clear in election after election after election that they want Netanyahu to continue to lead the country. If he’s convicted, they’ll consider it a political conviction of the worst kind. Questions have been raised as to whether he can even receive a fair trial given the media hype. If he’s acquitted, on the other hand, the other half of the country’s political map will say the judicial system caved in to Netanyahu’s bullying. This is a lose-lose situation. As The Jerusalem Post’s Herb Keinon noted this week, “regardless of the outcome of the trial, the country loses.... Either the country loses faith in its political system or in its legal system.”
I believe some version of the so-called French law would be a good idea – limiting the number of consecutive terms the prime minister could serve but providing immunity from police investigations and charges while in office. Just as nobody is above the law, it seems nobody in this position is going to be above allegations.
This is not the “Trial of the Century” and this is not our finest hour.