EXPLAINER: How could allies support Netanyahu in defending himself?

Benjamin Netanyahu, a former Israeli prime minister, is expected to run for government again. From there, he would attempt to use new legislation put up by his far-right and ultra-Orthodox friends to solve his decades-long legal problems. Such a court battle is seen by some as an attack on Israel’s democracy.

A dependable and comfortable governing majority would certainly support Netanyahu, 73, who is on trial for corruption and possibly provide him a reprieve from punishment.

Abolishing the delicate balance of powers that holds lawmakers in check, according to those who defend the legal system, would empower them to misuse their position.

According to Amir Fuchs, senior researcher at the Israel Democracy Institute think tank in Jerusalem, “it takes us to a position where our whole democracy comes down to elections, but once you are elected you may do anything you want.” “In any democracy, that is not a typical circumstance.”

The court system is seen by Israel’s right wing as an interventionist, left-leaning obstacle to its legislative agenda, and it has long pushed to be changed. A road for these improvements has now been made obvious by the likely coalition’s composition.

In three scandals involving affluent cronies and significant media moguls, Netanyahu is facing charges of fraud, breach of trust, and receiving bribes. He has claimed that the legal system and law enforcement are conducting a witch hunt against him while denying any wrongdoing.

According to Netanyahu’s political adversaries, claims of politically motivated prosecutors and judges are part of an effort to undermine the public’s confidence in the judicial system.

According to Netanyahu, the planned legal amendments won’t affect how his case turns out. He is constrained from interacting with the legal system while he is in court by a conflict of interest agreement, however it is uncertain if that will be upheld.

The following list of legal strategies might support Netanyahu:

INTERFERENCE CLAUSE

The most divisive amendment would affect Israel’s Supreme Court, which some claim would be a direct attack on Israel’s democracy.

Netanyahu’s allies claim that the Supreme Court intervenes much too often to overturn conservative policies. They contend that because voters elect their legislators, the Supreme Court’s challenge of those statutes is an insult to the will of the people.

Israel does not have a constitution; instead, it has a series of “fundamental laws” that protect rights and liberties. It is the responsibility of the courts to ensure that legislation complies with the relevant laws. Minorities and other organizations are considered as having one last chance to challenge laws they believe to be discriminatory before the Supreme Court.

The override provision, which is anticipated to be among the coalition’s first moves, would enable the administration to regard certain Supreme Court rulings as advisory only. Under the still-under-negotiation plan, the coalition would have the absolute right to overturn decisions with any majority, thereby dismantling Israel’s system of checks and balances.

The government may adopt other amendments to the statute that might exonerate Netanyahu after the override provision is approved, according to Yaniv Roznai, a legal professor at Reichman University outside Tel Aviv.

“FRANCES LAW”

A proposal being drafted by Netanyahu’s supporters would delay prosecuting a sitting prime minister for suspected crimes until after he leaves office. The term “French law” refers to the immunity enjoyed by presidents in France.

Israeli prime ministers in office may face charges. However, unlike in France, Israeli leaders are not subject to term limitations, therefore the protection of immunity may extend for many years. With 15 years in office, Netanyahu has been Israel’s prime minister the longest and he has no intention of stepping down.

A prime minister might face prosecution under the idea, although corruption-related offenses are not included. The scholar Fuchs said that gives the legislation the appearance of being created just for Netanyahu.

PENALTY CODE AMENDMENT

In three separate incidents, fraud and breach of trust have been charged against Netanyahu. Netanyahu’s supporters have vowed to get these charges removed from the criminal code.

They contend that the offence is vaguely defined and leaves too much discretion to the judge in determining whether to convict. They claim it puts MPs at an undue risk of unfair prosecution.

According to critics, dropping the accusation would take away a protection against corruption. They contend that focusing just on the accusation against Netanyahu might weaken the rule of law and pave the way for other modifications to the legislation to protect other legislators.

Former Israeli chief public defense Yoav Sapir said that expunging an infraction has a back-effect. That may result in the dismissal of two out of three of Netanyahu’s cases and the dropping of accusations in all three of his cases.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL’S RECONFIGURATION

Today, Israel’s attorney general is entrusted with safeguarding the public interest from any damage presented by government authorities while also advising the government on the legality of laws and acting as its legal counsel in court. The government appoints the attorney general, who must get approval from a qualified committee made up of former justice department employees and others.

Netanyahu’s supporters seek to create three different posts for the attorney general, at least two of which would be filled by political nominations.

Gali Baharav-Miara, the current attorney general, was chosen by the departing administration and she seems to have supported the decision to charge Netanyahu. Additionally, separating the role would keep her in office until the end of her term in 2028 while transferring part of her duties to a political appointee who may decide to terminate the trial. Firing her is difficult and undesirable from an image standpoint.

LARGE LEVERAGE

In the more difficult than anticipated negotiations presently taking place to establish a government, Netanyahu’s legal issues provide his potential coalition partners enormous influence.

His backers are requesting powerful portfolios in the areas of military, finance, and public safety. Additionally, they seek to legalize gender segregation in certain public areas and enhance government stipends for tens of thousands of ultra-Orthodox Jews who choose to study Jewish scriptures over finding employment.

Far-right and ultra-Orthodox parties may hold the key to Netanyahu’s legal rescue, giving them significant influence over the policies of the next administration and the direction of Israel.