Decisions despite elections

Elections were supposed to be held this November, but Netanyahu decided in December to move them up to April.

By JPOST EDITORIAL
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu listens to Avichai Mandelblit (photo credit: ABIR SULTAN/POOL/VIA REUTERS)
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu listens to Avichai Mandelblit
(photo credit: ABIR SULTAN/POOL/VIA REUTERS)
On Friday, Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit formally announced that he will decide on whether or not to indict Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before the upcoming national elections on April 9.
Though there have been leaks to the media that this would happen, the statement put out on Friday by the Justice Ministry was the first time that Mandelblit confirmed this plan of action. It was also a complete rejection of a request made by Netanyahu’s lawyers two weeks ago to delay the decision until after the elections.
On the one hand, we understand why Netanyahu would want to delay the decision and what the legal argument is to do so. Fair and open elections are the foundation for any democratic country like Israel. They need to be held without interference – foreign or domestic – and serve as an opportunity for the people to determine the identity of their leaders and by extension, the fate of the country through the ballot box.
By announcing a decision to indict Netanyahu (there seems to be slim chance that the decision will be to close the cases), Mandelblit appears to essentially be wading into Israel’s political process. His decision could lead voters to take their votes away from Netanyahu and possibly even have the opposite effect – push voters to rally behind him.
On the other hand, we support Mandelblit’s decision to finalize the investigations against the prime minister and announce his decision on whether he will indict Netanyahu without any connection to the ongoing election campaigns. If Mandelblit decides to indict Netanyahu, it will be an announcement of intent, since the final decision on an indictment will only be made after a hearing is held, a process that is predicted to take at least a year.
The justice system needs to continue to operate independently of politics and political decisions. Otherwise, we potentially open the justice system to political intervention and influence.
If politicians knew that elections would delay the investigation process, they would use national elections as a ploy to stall probes against them and potentially take the country to unnecessary elections that could have been avoided.
In addition – and as Mandelblit explained on Friday – while the general rule is for the attorney-general to avoid any decision or step that would give the appearance of bias toward any political party or politician, in Netanyahu’s case, delaying the decision would actually show bias in favor of the prime minister.
Chronologically speaking, Mandelblit reminded the public that the team of prosecutors overseeing the Netanyahu probes publicly announced that it had completed its review of the evidence before the prime minister had decided to take the country to early elections. Elections were supposed to be held this November, but Netanyahu decided in December to move them up to April.
And lastly, a delay would give the appearance that the attorney-general’s office can be influenced by pressure put on it by the prime minister. That would undermine the office that is meant to protect the public from political corruption and uphold Israeli law.
There is also value in the public knowing who it is voting for and what exactly the allegations are against officials running for public office. It might be uncomfortable for Netanyahu, but that is the price of living in a democracy where there is a separation of powers, and the executive branch does not oversee the justice system.
In addition, while the decision will be announced before the election on April 9, it is expected to be made sometime by February 21, meaning that Netanyahu will have plenty of time before the official vote to fight back and present his defense to the public.
We do not know how the probes against Netanyahu will end. As a country, Israel should prefer to change its leaders via the ballot box and not through criminal investigations. But if investigations are opened, they need to be allowed to be conducted without political interference. That is a sign of a democracy’s resilience – and one that Israelis can be proud of.