Netanyahu's High Court hearing: Polite and ready to fight – analysis

The judges and lawyers called each other sir and madame and addressed each other respectfully and politely. Knesset members are more likely to call each other names that cannot be published.

By GIL HOFFMAN
Israeli High Court hearing on whether Netanyahu can form next government despite indictment he faces. (December 31, 2019) (photo credit: YONAH JEREMY BOB)
Israeli High Court hearing on whether Netanyahu can form next government despite indictment he faces. (December 31, 2019)
(photo credit: YONAH JEREMY BOB)
Watching the live proceedings of the Supreme Court deliberations on whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can form a government on Sunday shocked the system of those used to watching the Knesset.
The judges and lawyers called each other sir and madame and addressed each other respectfully and politely. Knesset members are more likely to call each other names that cannot be printed in a newspaper.
But their dignified demeanor in the seven hours of deliberations did not hide the tension among the 11 judges, which was just as intense as the stormiest sessions in the parliament building next door.
That is in part because the decisions the judges must make this week are so fateful. They are deciding whether Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could have a new government by the end of the week or if another election will be initiated by the end of the week.
The Likud purposely negotiated its coalition agreement with Blue and White to make that choice crystal clear to the judges. While some coalition agreements are written for public consumption and some are actual guidelines for a government moving forward, this one was written with the judges in mind.
Had that not been their choice, perhaps the judges would have felt free to flex their muscles and set a precedent that Israel cannot have a prime minister who has been indicted on serious charges, or at least disqualify key parts of the coalition agreement. 
But Netanyahu, who has been sparring with the legal establishment for years, most likely succeeded in tying the judges’ hands. While they are not politicians, they surely will take into account the consequences of their verdict, both on the public and on their image.
If they go too far in claiming more power for their branch of government, the judges will invite revenge from the executive and legislative branches that would make this week’s rulings a Pyrrhic victory.
Supreme Court president Esther Hayut made a point of criticizing lawyers from both sides and accusing them both of “populism.” But Hayut, who may end up casting the deciding vote in a court divided by its own politics, will no doubt have to be a little populist herself.
Some of the judges looked uncomfortable expressing themselves on live television. The live broadcasts of their deliberations is a new and welcome development.
Perhaps it was just because of the masks they had to wear, due to the coronavirus. The masks understandably make all of us feel uneasy.
But maybe it was also because some of them know that they might have no choice but to make a decision that goes against their good judgement, their personal ideology and maybe even against their interpretation of the law.
They might sound very different from the politicians who work down the hill, but now they are on TV just like them. And this week, they might have to make decisions like them, too.