The Law of the Accused, which the Opposition promises to pass if it can muster a majority, determines that the head of state (president) cannot assign the task of putting together a government upon anyone who has been judicially accused. The significance is clear: If such a law had already existed in Israel, Netanyahu would have been prevented from setting up a government many long years ago.
Supporters of this law claim that it is a fitting law which would prevent a prime minister who had charges against him from serving as such, both from the judicial aspect and also from the conflict of interests due to his high rank which has impact on the judicial system as well as the public's faith on the governmental structure.
No such law exists regarding government ministers, but the court's decision did serve as a precedent regarding ministers against whom charges were made due to what the court called "an extreme lack of reasonability." That is why the then-serving prime minister ordered that ministers already serving in the cabinet be discharged.
As previously mentioned, there does not exist such a law passed by the Knesset, though the court, as it is wont to do, does not require such an existing law in order to do what it wants. And indeed, it forced every prime minister since then and to date, to dismiss or prevent the instating of ministers who were legally accused of charges. This is to say we are talking about accusations alone that may eventually prove unfounded.
In a normal, civilized country, there are grounds for such a law, but in Israel where bodies entrusted with a government of law and order are political bodies in every sense, the High Court exploits its power to 'settle accounts' against ministers who do not find favor in its eyes.
And thus were charges placed against Minister Yaakov Ne'eman many years ago when the then government legal advisor subjected him to a criminal inquiry resulting in his inability to be appointed Minister of Justice. A year later, Ne'eman was acquitted of all charges but the damage has already been done.
In the course of the case(s) against Netanyahu, a plot of tailored charges against him by the prosecution was exposed. In a standard country, this would have brought about severe charges against the prosecutors.
It is clear that had such a law existed, it would have empowered the police and the office of the prosecutor with a controlling tool to affect democratic processes. To create accusatory cases is no difficult feat, while to fight them is a long, extended process in this country where the judicial system operates in criminal slothfulness.
The previous head of police, Roni Alshich, admitted in a press conference that the judicial system's expectation about the Netanyahu case was that he would either resign from his post or that his party would depose him because of the accusation. No one dreamed that he would persevere until the end.
When these battles become players on the political course, it is imperative to curtail its power to affect the democratic systems which still remain in this country.
