Post-Netanyahu, Israel must shake up its judicial system
While the prime minister is the last person to complain about rough treatment from the judicial system, it does some serious problems that need to be addressed. Imagine if Robert Mueller werealso Donald Trump's adviser.
Benjamin Netanyahu's time in office is probably nearing an end, and not only are his anger and resentment over the role of the judicial system in his decline are far from impressive, he is really the last person to complain. For it was the legal system that led to Netanyahu's return to office, when it ousted his predecessor Ehud Olmert.
Moreover, the approach of law enforcement agencies towards Netanyahu is far more lenient than it was to Olmert or even Yitzhak Rabin.
Rabin was ousted over an illicit American bank account, even though it was an offense that carried no moral turpitude and for which there was a possibility of merely a fine. But the attorney general at the time prevented this - and led to a revolution that brought Menachem Begin to power. Olmert was subjected to unbridled pursuit, including the unjustifiably early court testimony by Moshe Talansky, a move that effectively ended his tenure as prime minister.
The attitude of the judicial system toward Netanyahu is much more moderate: One only need look at the statements made at the start of the investigation into the so-called submarine affair, and the way in which Netanyahu was exonerated, not to mention the fact that many of the details of this case are still under wraps.
There is nonetheless some truth to Netanyahu's claims both about the leaks against him and Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit's primetime television appearance (even though he managed to say nothing of significance). But then again, the leaks against the current prime minister are nothing compared to what happened during Olmert's era, and I do not recall any indignant objections from Netanyahu at the time.
It is clear that there are serious problems relating to the legal system, its functioning, its relationship to other governmental authorities, and the violation of human rights within criminal law.
One such problem is the authority of the attorney general, who holds powers that no democratic state should give to an unelected official. The AG's strange combination of prosecutorial power and advisory authority has created an unnatural, not to say sick situation, in which he is responsible for the investigations into Netanyahu while also acting as his top legal adviser. Imagine, for example, if Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russian involvement in the 2016 presidential election, were also serving concurrently as Donald Trump's adviser on all administrative and government matters in the US.
But the necessary confrontation of these problems can only get underway after Netanyahu's term ends, and should be done with clear understandings between the post-Netanyahu government and the main opposition party.
Separation of counsel from prosecution is essential for the reasonable and healthy functioning of both. Simultaneously, there is a need for a system of oversight of the prosecution. Netanyahu and his people are currently complaining about selective, discriminatory law enforcement, and on some points they are correct. But Netanyahu failed to take care of this when he could have done so, and now we must wait for the end of his tenure.
Finally, there is the Supreme Court's intrusion into the domains of the executive and legislative branches, including on the abolition of basic laws. The handling of this important matter will also have to wait for the post-Netanyahu government to take action in a responsible, rational and practical manner.
