The irony of Bibi-Gantz wars- High Court has already passed on ousting PM

For weeks now, they seem unable to stop fighting over dealing with the scenario where the High Court of Justice might force Netanyahu out of office because of the indictment he faces.

By YONAH JEREMY BOB
Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu and Blue and White leader Benny Gantz (photo credit: REUTERS)
Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu and Blue and White leader Benny Gantz
(photo credit: REUTERS)
The strangest thing is happening in this already bizarre time.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Blue and White Party leader Benny Gantz are in an extended game of decapitating each other politically over something that – for anyone who has paid attention – will never happen.
For weeks now, they seem unable to stop fighting over dealing with the scenario where the High Court of Justice might force Netanyahu out of office because of the indictment he faces.
Maybe they missed the memo, or rather the several memos?
The High Court has fallen over itself now several times for seven months to avoid ruling on the issue – and has rejected several petitions with at least three different viable strategies for disqualifying him.
If the High Court had any intention of kicking Netanyahu out of office, it would either have done it shortly after November 21 when Netanyahu was indicted, so as to make Gantz the only one who could become prime minister and avoid the March 2 election.
Or, it would have done it shortly after January 28 when Netanyahu dropped his campaign for immunity and the indictment was finally filed with the courts.
There would have been a March 2 election, but Netanyahu would have been disqualified from running in it far enough in advance for the Likud to pick a new leader.
Yet time after time, the High Court said it was too early and premature.
How on earth can it be premature if he has continued serving as prime minister for seven months and if they let him run for reelection in March – an election in which he increased his and Likud’s power to 36 seats?
It does not matter though whether one accepts the High Court’s legal gymnastics to avoid ruling on the issue – the point is they do not want to weigh in.
Their strategy has been to either hope he gets beat in an election, or that when he forms a new government, he does so decisively enough that criticism of the High Court for skirting the issue will be minimal.
Shortly before the March 2 election, the High Court came right out and said: “The election period is a politically sensitive time, so it is fitting to act with heavy restraint… this is in light of the most complex and sensitive period without historical precedent within which the State of Israel currently finds itself.”
Technically, the court only ordered the petition withdrawn at the time and did not reject it fully, leaving the door open to disqualifying Netanyahu post-election.
But in practical terms and from the tone of the ruling, the court made it clear that it wants no part in forcing Netanyahu out of office any earlier than a point where the law demands this unambiguously, leaving the question of who leads the country to the voters.
According to the straight wording of the basic laws, a prime minister – unlike other ministers – can only be forced out of office once convicted and all appeals are exhausted.
Many top legal officials have said that the High Court could force Netanyahu out for being indicted for bribery, just as it has forced every minister for around 25 years to resign upon indictment.
But the court has made it clear it wants no part of forcing Netanyahu out based on a disputed interpretation.
Furthermore, the court allowed Netanyahu’s trial to be delayed from March 17 until May 24.
Yes, corona provided a decent excuse, but this was a technical hearing with no witnesses, which could have been done in person with a small number of attendees or by videoconference like so many other important hearings are being done.
The only reason it was delayed was because the High Court gave acting Justice Minister Amir Ohana the nod on the issue. In other words, the justices are not looking to toss out Netanyahu any earlier than the law requires.
So, what are Netanyahu and Gantz really fighting about?
To some extent, the struggle is symbolic.
Each side wants to show they did not give in and will have power over the future shape of the courts.
But many accounts suggest that both sides have so little trust for the other side, and Netanyahu has such suspicion of the courts, that both are ignoring all of the loud and clear legal signs that there is nothing to fight about.
Hopefully, if the country does get stuck with a fourth election, it will not be over this non-issue.