The Kafkaesque trial of Benjamin Netanyahu – opinion
The only conclusion is that Netanyahu’s trial is an unprecedented hornet’s nest of its own, incomparable to anything else.
By SUSAN HATTIS ROLEFPRIME MINISTER Benjamin Netanyahu at his trial.(photo credit: REUTERS)
Listening to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu deliver his scandalous speech just before the opening of his trial on Sunday last week, inside the Jerusalem District Court building – surrounded by obedient Likud Ministers, all wearing protective masks that presented them as faceless – I got the feeling that our prime minister somehow views himself in the role of Joseph K, in Franz Kafka’s memorable novel The Trial.True, there were no charges brought against Joseph K, and there are three charge sheets that were served again Benjamin N, but Netanyahu treats these charge sheets as if they were just a heap of empty, meaningless words. Other differences are that in the case of Joseph K it is not known who the prosecutors are, whereas in the case of Benjamin N the “culprits” are all named, and at least two of them have been assigned heavy protection. Joseph K was all alone – Benjamin N has many supporters and henchmen, who are helping spread an ominous atmosphere. “The ‘people’ will not accept a conviction...,” is the message.On second thought, perhaps, Netanyahu perceives himself as a present day Alfred Dreyfus, who was put on trial to take the blame for a treasonous act performed by another French military officer, just because he was a Jew. The evidence against Dreyfus was all fabricated, and Netanyahu accuses the police, State Attorney’s Office and the Attorney General of having fabricated all the evidence against him. Nevertheless, it should be noted that no one (not even Netanyahu’s attorneys), denies the facts behind the indictment in Netanyahu’s case, but only the interpretation of these facts as established by the law enforcement authorities – especially the question of whether they constitute criminal offenses, rather than only non-normative or unethical conduct. Of course, antisemitism has nothing to do with Netanyahu’s case.The only conclusion is that Netanyahu’s trial is an unprecedented hornet’s nest of its own, incomparable to anything else.What happened on Sunday last week was certainly a unique event, which delighted some and greatly disturbed others. Netanyahu is the first prime minister in Israel who is standing trial while still in office and, according to Israeli law, can remain in office until such time as he is declared guilty by a final court instance (after appeal). In the last 500+ days Netanyahu has played every trick in the game not to spend a single minute outside the status of prime minister, and in the new emergency government invented the status of “Alternate Prime Minister” in order to ensure that even after the rotation in the premiership takes place (if it will take place) he will still enjoy the status of prime minister.Though Netanyahu tried to do everything to wriggle out of appearing in the court room for the opening of his trial, when his request to be absolved from turning up in court was rejected, his conduct in the court room was exemplary. However, what he did just before he entered the court room was anything but exemplary. Within the courthouse building he gave a speech in which he accused all the law enforcement authorities – the police, the State Attorney’ Office and the Attorney General – of supporting the “just not Bibi” camp, and of fabricating accusations against him. The sole purpose of all this, according to him, is to thwart the wishes of the majority, and to throw him – and the Right – out of office. This was the prime minister speaking!NEEDLESS TO say, there isn’t a shred of evidence that any of these accusations are true. Netanyahu also deliberately refuses to admit that in the elections to the 21st, 22nd and 23rd Knessets – though the Likud received impressive results – he did not have a majority in the Knesset, and finally was only able to form a government with the support of part of Blue and White and the Labor Party, which had been elected on “just not Bibi” tickets.Of course, Netanyahu has every right to believe (or claim to believe) that “there will be nothing because there is nothing,” and that the cases against him are all fabricated. Former president Moshe Katsav, after serving his sentence for rape, still argues that he is innocent, as does former prime minister Ehud Olmert after he served his sentence for bribery. However, neither preceded the opening of their trials, within the premises of the court house with a brazen “I accuse” performance such as that delivered by Netanyahu. How the Courts Administration allowed this to happen is not clear. It was apparently caught totally unprepared for this auto-Emil Zola-like performance.According to a recent opinion poll 42% of the population believes that the charges against Netanyahu are fabricated. One may assume that very few of these persons actually read the charge sheets against him, and that most of them simply take Netanyahu’s word that this is what happened. What I find even more incredible (and worrying) is the fact that there are many Mizrahim and right-wingers who believe that it is the “Second Israel” and “the whole right” that are on trial.The main spokesman for the first proposition is Avishai Ben-Haim, reporter on religious and ultra-Orthodox affairs on Channel 13, who claims that Netanyahu represents the Second Israel – peripheral Israel and the Mizrahim – who feel that an attack on Netanyahu is an attack on them. More specifically, Ben-Haim claims that he feels as if he personally is on trial and that it is the old elites who are the prosecutors. Ben-Haim, whose doctorate was about the approach of founder of the Shas party Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, towards Kabbalah and the Kabbalists, is responsible for many fine TV reports on the subject of his expertise. However, in the last year he seems to have a bee in his bonnet on the issue of the Second Israel, and its use to describe Netanyahu, in the context as the son of a man who experienced rejection by the mainstream for ideological reasons. Ben-Haim claims that the old elite hegemony is using the legal system to prevent the Second Israel from carrying its weight in determining who will lead the country, and Netanyahu’s trial is part of this trend.
The main proponent of the saying that “it is the whole Right that is on trial” is Minister of Internal Security Amir Ohana, who argues (as does Netanyahu himself) that what the old liberal elites and the law enforcement establishment are trying to do is prevent the Right from realizing its electoral power by attacking its most successful and charismatic leader – Netanyahu – and what they cannot achieve through the ballot box they are trying to attain in the courtroom.These two theories totally ignore the fact that Netanyahu is on trial for his highly problematic personal conduct and for his inclination to see himself as above the law and the accepted norms – not for his attempts to integrate the Second Israel, or for his right-wing ideology (which is inclined to be opportunistic).However, there is no doubt that the two theories have resonated with a good deal of the public, contributing to the spreading of an unpleasant Kafkaesque atmosphere, which will undoubtedly intensify as the trial progresses.
