Scenarios for Netanyahu to escape trial under new legislation policy

Occupied Jerusalem- The trial file of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of committing war crimes in Gaza – has returned to the forefront of the political and legal scene in Israel, with escalating efforts within the Knesset to amend the laws, which may open the door to halting his trial or reducing the charges against him.

While calls are intensifying within the ruling coalition to enable it to escape the sword of the judiciary, the opposition and the government’s judicial advisor, Gali Baharav Meara, are talking about a “legislative coup” that threatens what remains of the independence of the Israeli judicial system.

This movement coincided with pressure from political and legal figures demanding that Israeli President Isaac Herzog grant Netanyahu a presidential pardon, in light of what circles close to the latter describe as the “exceptional circumstances” that Israel is going through on several fronts.

This controversy raised questions about the possible scenarios for Netanyahu’s trial. Will it end with his acquittal through legal legislation? Or will a presidential pardon spare Israel a new coalition crisis?

Transfer of powers

Amid this, the Israeli Knesset approved, yesterday, Wednesday, in a preliminary reading, a draft law allowing the appointment of a new Attorney General who has the authority to review the indictments against Netanyahu in cases of corruption and breach of trust.

It is expected that several similar draft laws will be merged as the legislative process progresses, in a move that aims, according to Israeli and opposition analyses, to weaken the powers of the government’s judicial advisor, Gali Baharav Meara, and pave the way for canceling Netanyahu’s trial.

The bill, presented by Knesset Member Michel Buskila of the “New Hope” party, headed by Gideon Sa’ar, grants a three-member committee the power to approve any decision to open an investigation or prosecute the prime minister, ministers, and members of the Knesset, which practically means transferring these powers from the judicial advisor to the new public prosecutor.

In parallel, the head of the Law and Constitution Committee for the “Religious Zionism” party, Simcha Rotman, presented another project that would separate the position of judicial advisor into three positions: advisor to the government, public prosecutor, and judicial representative before the courts, which reduces the authority of Chancellor Baharav Meara, who strongly opposes this trend, and considers it “part of a broader plan to weaken the judicial system and undermine the foundations of democracy.”

Israeli analyzes indicate that passing the law may actually lift the sword of imprisonment from Netanyahu, while political observers believe that Washington is closely following developments, fearing that these legislations will strengthen the power of the extreme right at the expense of balances within the Israeli government, especially with regard to the Palestinian file, Gaza, and the West Bank.

Between the new legislative efforts and the demands for a presidential pardon, it seems that Netanyahu, according to Israeli readings, is standing at a critical crossroads. He will either escape trial by force of law, or by a political decision that redraws the boundaries of the relationship between the authority and the judiciary in Israel.

“Exclusion of the law”

The newspaper “Haaretz” devoted its daily editorial to warning against legislation aimed at fortifying Netanyahu and avoiding him going to prison, considering that the draft law to dismiss the position of judicial advisor to the government “is not an administrative reform, but rather a systematic exclusion of the institutions of the rule of law.”

The newspaper said that the project approved by the Knesset in a preliminary reading constitutes a new episode in the government’s efforts to dismantle the oversight and enforcement agencies that curb its authority, noting that it actually aims to deprive Baharav Meara of the authority to decide on the continuation of the trial of Netanyahu, who is accused of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust.

Haaretz added that the move, led by Israeli Justice Minister Yariv Levin and Simcha Rotman, will lead to the “completely politicization of the Public Prosecution,” so that the appointed prosecutor will become beholden to the government and committed to its political interest.

She considered that the justifications for separating and dividing the position of judicial advisor are “weak,” as legal advisors have proven over the decades their ability to combine providing advice to the government and prosecuting corruption cases against senior officials, stressing that the real goal of the legislation is “to weaken the judiciary and abolish the principle of separation of powers.”

The newspaper concluded by emphasizing that Israel does not need to dismantle the institution of the legal advisor, but rather to protect it, because the independent advisor is “the last guarantee of the rule of law and equality before it.”

Netanyahu went too far

Under the title “An accused tries with all his might to evade justice, turning the trial into a scandal,” writer Nir Kipnis on the Israeli “Wala” website discussed the course of Netanyahu’s trial, which, according to him, has become an example of “political and legal absurdity,” in light of his continuous attempts to obstruct the course of the judiciary through procrastination, postponement, and media confusion, all the way to betting on a presidential pardon, which is receiving increasing support within the right-wing camp.

Kipnis points out that Netanyahu’s trial has now broken records in terms of postponements and chaos, as Wednesday’s session began with Netanyahu complaining about journalists who dared to question him, followed by his demand to hold a closed session and then shortening it under the pretext of an “urgent security meeting,” before a group of his supporters appeared outside the hall to intimidate media professionals.

He believes that the court is being lenient with Netanyahu, allowing him to repeat the same behaviors that weaken the prestige of the judiciary and deliberately prolong the trial, adding that this “playing with time” aims to wait for a political variable, such as holding early elections or a partial recognition deal that precedes a presidential pardon, that stops the judicial procedures.

Kipnis also links the government’s moves against the Supreme Court to Netanyahu’s efforts to undermine judicial institutions that might speed up his trial, warning that this legal battle has become entirely political, and that threats against judges and journalists have become a threat to the democratic system.

He concludes that the “myth of the collapse of the cases” against Netanyahu has evaporated, as his repeated behavior in disrupting the sessions indicates a real fear of justice, stressing that what is required now is “to call on the accused to discipline and put an end to the chaos of the trial,” before the courtroom turns into “a new arena for political violence.”

Politics intervention

For her part, constitutional law expert and Vice President of the Israeli Democracy Institute, Professor Suzi Navot, pointed out that Representative Limor Son Har-Melish’s bill, canceling Netanyahu’s trial, cannot be separated from the broader context related to the prime minister’s pardon issue.

The bill stipulates that “any Knesset committee, after an indictment is filed and before a ruling is issued, may, by reasoned written notice to the court, postpone legal proceedings against the Prime Minister or any minister if it deems it necessary.”

Despite the reference to ministers in general, the law personally targets Netanyahu, as legal penalties against other ministers automatically stop their work when an indictment is submitted, while the prime minister remains in his position and needs to postpone the procedures.

Navot explained, in an article on the Israeli Channel 12 website, that the goal is clear; Giving the government the ability to politically interfere in the judiciary, a power that should remain exclusively with the Attorney General, which violates the principle of independence of the judicial system, separation of powers, and equality before the law.

She stressed that the draft law is being used as a tool to fortify Netanyahu politically, whether by postponing the trial, or even possibly canceling it completely, while referring to the possible presidential pardon scenario that is being discussed by circles supporting him inside and outside Israel.

In conclusion, Navot believes that these legislations reflect serious violations of democratic values, and turn legal procedures into a purely political tool, ultimately aiming to evade the Prime Minister from justice, and undermining the principle of separation of powers and the rule of law in Israel.