Newsru.co.il political commentator Gabi Wolfson summarized the results of internal political processes in Israel over the past week.
Although the war continues, the outgoing week would rather be called political and legal. The completion of the investigation into the leak of secret documents, the scandals surrounding the government’s legal advisor and the news of the week: the decision of the International Criminal Court in The Hague to issue arrest warrants against the Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Minister of Defense Yoava Galanta. And, of course, we must not forget the Caesarea incident, which it would be stupid to call an attempted assassination of the prime minister, but we are not talking about just any incident.
Meanwhile, the coalition remains feverish. The ultra-Orthodox opposed the minister’s intentions Yariva Levina revive legal reform. On the right flank, including some Likud representatives, openly demand resignation Gali Baarav-Miary. Meanwhile, Benjamin Netanyahu is preparing for December 2, when he will begin testifying in court.
From The Hague to Gaza: the dilemma of the Israeli government
The decision by the International Court of Justice in The Hague to issue arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Galant does not affect internal Israeli politics. However, the impact these orders will have on the course of the war will ultimately affect Israeli policy.
Netanyahu feared such a court decision. In the political system, it has become almost an axiom that the expansion of humanitarian assistance to the sector (even though the strengthening and enriching of Hamas as a result of these actions is an obvious result and no one disputes it) was followed direct evidence that we are not talking about a sentence of famine and other nonsense on which the decision to issue arrest warrants is based. Furthermore, there were those who argued that Netanyahu would agree to show “flexibility” or, put simply, make additional concessions to stop the trial in The Hague.
This did not happen. Either the theories about Netanyahu’s willingness to act in this way were unfounded, or Israel was too reliant on the United States’ ineffective pressure on the International Court.
Now the Israeli government has two lines of action: wait until January 20, when the White House returns donald trumpor some steps in an attempt to change the ICC decision. Most likely, anticipating Trump, Netanyahu will try to end military operations in Lebanon, counting on shifting focus to Gaza and trying to reach an agreement there as well. Shortly after it became known that the ICC had issued arrest warrants, an unnamed military source in Jerusalem said that “Hamas is interested in the deal.” As always, an anonymous statement with an unclear basis, which may turn out to coincide in time with the ICC’s decision, or may symbolize a change in the government’s course.
In the negotiations on the agreement, not everything depends on Israel. At the same time, the creation of a state investigative commission, according to many experts, could suspend the process of issuing court orders. It is not clear how effective this step can be now, but in any case, Benjamin Netanyahu is not going to do it now. The coalition intends to promote a bill stating that an investigative commission will be formed through the Knesset. We are talking about blocking the possibility of creating a state investigative commission. The bill appeared in the media just hours before the dramatic decision of the International Criminal Court.
The decision also makes it much more difficult for Netanyahu to fire the government’s legal adviser. Even before the ICC decision, Netanyahu was not enthusiastic about this idea, fearing the possible consequences (more on this later). Firing his legal advisor amid criticism from international legal authorities is the last thing Netanyahu needs right now. Obviously, such a measure will reduce the already slim chances of order cancellations. On the other hand, pressure is mounting on Netanyahu to fire the government’s legal advisor.
Coalition against the legal advisor: another peak of the war
The launching of flares towards Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s house was not an attack on the head of government’s life. Those who launched the missiles knew very well that Netanyahu’s family was not at home, and this act in itself did not pose a threat to anyone’s life. This, however, does not change the fact that we are talking about an obvious act of violence, and it must be said that the Shin Bet and the police in this case acted quickly and effectively: within a few hours the suspects were arrested.
At the same time, this incident led to an avalanche of accusations against law enforcement in general and the government’s legal advisor in particular. Those around Netanyahu and the coalition claim that “incitement collusion against the Prime Minister led to the shooting in the direction of the Netanyahu family home.”
This incident, of course, was not a shooting, and the question of the connection between incitement and physical violence deserves special attention. For almost three decades, the right has been accused of incitement that allegedly led to murder. Isaac Rabin. The right, for its part, maintains that Yigal Amir he acted independently, and even if there had not been a single protester on the streets in those days, he would still have committed the attempted murder. Today the roles have changed. The right shouts that “words kill” are incitements, while opponents of the government argue that these are legitimate protests.
Whether or not there is a connection between the Balfour, Kaplan and Stolen Square demonstrations is up to everyone to decide for themselves. The only indisputable fact is that the law enforcement agencies guaranteed the protesters full freedom of expression. This was the reason for demands to fire the government’s legal advisor.
Everyone in the current government holds a grudge against Gali Baarav-Miaru. The ultra-Orthodox do not forgive him for his position on the issue of subsidizing daycare centers. Itamar Ben Gvir he does not want to see her in office, as he demanded that Netanyahu fire him from office. Not only coalition politicians consider Gali Baarav-Miara a legal advisor opposed to the government, which, judging by her title, she is supposed to advise. Professor of Constitutional Law Moshe Cohen-Eliya said in an interview with Kan REKA that “the number of cases in which Baarav-Miara uses his powers to interfere with the actions of the government is almost unprecedented”, and called for demanding the dismissal of Minister Ben-Gvir without bringing him an accusation . craziness.
It all depends on Netanyahu’s decision, who is in no hurry to decide and has his reasons. When the Supreme Court unanimously rejected an appeal in 2020 to prevent the criminally accused prime minister from forming a coalition, it relied on several paragraphs. Among other things, Netanyahu has no right to interfere in the functioning of the legal system, much less its structure. The decision to fire Baarav-Miara would be a clear violation of this paragraph, which would automatically return the issue of declaring Netanyahu unfit to perform his duties back on the agenda. This week the head of the opposition Yair Lapid declared at a meeting of the Yesh Atid faction that the dismissal of the legal advisor and the declaration of Netanyahu unable to perform his duties are inextricably linked.
On the other hand, pressure is intensifying, mainly from the Otzma Yehudit party, to change the legal advisor. “We are approaching the moment when there will be no choice but to say, ‘Either Gali or us,’” Otzma Yehudit MP Yitzhak Kreuser told me in Kan REKA. Everyone knows well that “Otsma” knows how to get his way. Ben-Gvir has been participating for weeks in closed-door meetings to manage the war. If Ben-Gvir sets out to get rid of Gali Baarav-Miara, Netanyahu may be in trouble.
The opposition goes on the offensive using Netanyahu’s methods
This week the opposition called Netanyahu on the red carpet. One of the tools of the parliamentary struggle at the disposal of the opposition is the possibility of collecting 40 signatures from deputies and calling an extraordinary meeting with the participation of the Prime Minister, who must sit all the time in the meeting room and listen to the speeches of the opposition. After being dissuaded by opposition representatives, Netanyahu took the podium and was met with a very aggressive reception. Three weeks ago, when the session opened, Netanyahu also spoke. Then the opposition remained calm and calm, like obedient children or like the opposition during the war. This time they behaved completely differently. Shouts from the spot, various tricks, for example, turning your back on the podium, looking back at the guest balcony, where some of the hostages’ relatives were.
The opposition is not limited to trolling in the Knesset meeting room. Immediately after Yoav Galant’s ouster, opposition factions decided to follow the path of the opposition in the previous Knesset. Then Likud, almost from the first days of its mandate, voted against all coalition initiatives without exception. Yesh Atid behaves the same way today.
NDI leader Avigdor Liberman He asked this week to end the breakup. “We must first win the war and then address internal disputes,” he said. This did not stop Lieberman from continuing his attacks on the ultra-Orthodox establishment over the bill. This law has not yet been adopted and it is unknown if it will be; However, the NDI and Yesh Atid have spared no effort in this regard.
Despite the intensifying struggle with the government, most opposition party leaders strongly condemned the launching of flares towards the Prime Minister’s house in Caesarea. The exception was Yair Golanwho described this story as “Netanyahu manipulation,” as well as deputies from Arab parties. At the same time, even Golan condemned the decision of the Hague court. RAAM and HADASH-TAAL – no.
And one last thing. On November 21, the state prosecutor’s office brought charges against the defendants for the theft of a secret document and its release to the Western media. From the published materials of the case, two preliminary conclusions emerge so far: 1) the document delivered to Bild is the original, which has not undergone any changes (that is, Hamas did not really want the agreement), 2) the main minister is currently a suspect or even a witness not relevant to the case. Considering that the investigation against the Prime Minister’s advisor Jonathan Urich continues, perhaps the previous conclusions will be corrected. At the same time, people familiar with the case materials argue that the likelihood of this case extending to Netanyahu personally is extremely low.
