Sharon peace may have delayed legal case, Bibi’s won’t – why not?
There are many crucial differences between Sharon and Netanyahu’s cases, not the least of which is that Sharon died mid-investigation.
By YONAH JEREMY BOBPRIME MINISTER Benjamin Netanyahu with members of his legal team at the beginning of his corruption trial at the Jerusalem District Court in May.(photo credit: RONEN ZVULUN/REUTERS)
While there is no official history that says that Ariel Sharon’s Gaza withdrawal significantly delayed the corruption cases against him and his son Omri, it is a theory that many have raised.Likewise, since the recent announcement of a peace deal between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, some may ask whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might get a similar extended delay in his corruption case.Unequivocally, the answer is no.There are many crucial differences between Sharon’s and Netanyahu’s cases, not the least of which is that Sharon died mid-investigation.But the biggest and decisive difference is actually the timeline of the legal proceedings at the moment of the peace move in question.Put simply, Netanyahu’s peace move, unlike Sharon’s, is being made too late in the game to freeze the legal clock.WHEN SHARON publicized his plans to withdraw from Gaza in 2003, there were two ongoing probes into his conduct, but the attorney-general had not reached any decisions. Some of the activities dated all the way back to 1999, and the first rumblings toward a probe dated back to 2001. Critical legal decisions were being considered in Sharon’s cases in 2003, around the time he announced his Gaza withdrawal.Following his 2003 announced intention to withdraw, one of the probes was eventually closed and the second one was delayed until August 28, 2005 – around two weeks after the withdrawal had already started. On August 28, 2005, Sharon’s son Omri was indicted. No decision was ever reached about the prime minister himself.Sharon suffered two strokes between December 2005 and early January 2006. The first stroke was only a few weeks after Omri pleaded guilty, and the second, which put Sharon into a permanent coma, was days after Omri resigned from the Knesset and with his possible sentencing to jail approaching. After his death, the probe of Sharon was closed in 2013.There were plenty of strictly legal reasons that could have led to closing the cases against Sharon. Yet many argue that the decision of no action against the prime minister for years and the extensive delay of action against Omri were out of the legal establishment’s sympathy with Sharon’s peace move of withdrawing from Gaza.
IN CONTRAST, Netanyahu is far beyond waiting for a decision from the attorney-general. Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit already announced an intention to indict Netanyahu on February 28, 2019. By November 21, 2019, Mandelblit had issued a final indictment decision. By January 28, Mandelblit had filed the indictment with the court, and an initial hearing was set for March.Due to the coronavirus emergency, that hearing was delayed, but Netanyahu appeared in court on May 24, and a second hearing occurred already on July 19. This second hearing was crucial, as the court set a pretrial schedule with various document issues already being addressed and the calling of witnesses three days a week being set for January 2021.All of this means that Netanyahu’s August announcement of a UAE-Israel peace deal came long after the train had left the station on his legal fate.The police, the state prosecution and the attorney-general all have some discretion to delay their decisions regarding a top public figure.This is what happened with Sharon, who announced his peace move before they had finalized their decisions. In fact, Netanyahu was also the beneficiary of various delays unrelated to peace issues. But if Netanyahu hoped for lenient treatment in the final decision or a greater delay of the final decision so that he could pursue his current peace moves, it is just too late.Courts do have discretion to delay when they pronounce their final verdict.If Netanyahu is still prime minister and pulls out another major peace initiative between when calling witnesses has ended and when a verdict is reached, he could benefit at that much later stage from a delay of some months.But courts cannot unreasonably delay starting a trial once an indictment is filed and certainly not after they have already set a date to call witnesses.Of course, Netanyahu was probably not expecting legal help from his peace move. The timing of this decision seems to have mainly been determined by US President Donald Trump to try to advance his November reelection hopes. If Netanyahu calls early elections, the deal might also benefit him politically, but not on the legal plane.Another issue Netanyahu might have had, even if he had announced a peace move prior to Mandelblit’s decision, is Mandelblit himself. Though Netanyahu’s supporters have recently claimed Mandelblit is a lackey of the Left, the attorney-general has unimpeachably centrist-right-wing views and has tried to assist with limited annexation moves in the past.Even in Sharon’s time, accusations that the whole legal establishment was left-wing and was helping him because of its ideology about his peace moves were debatable and likely oversimplistic.The legal establishment may have a majority left-wing leaning, but there are many right-wingers there as well, and generally officials leave their politics at the door.But if there was some basis for claims of a left-wing-led legal establishment at the time, there is no basis to claim that center-right Mandelblit would have gone out of his way to help any prime minister make left-wing peace moves to avoid annexation. So really, Netanyahu would have needed to announce peace moves both before the issue got to the courts and before it got to Mandelblit.All of this is speculative and it is possible that peace moves did not help Sharon either. But regardless of what happened with Sharon, it is unquestionable that Netanyahu’s current peace moves will not help his legal situation.
