This week saw a heated debate erupt around the bill that was introduced by Justice Minister Gideon Sa’ar, which would prevent criminals from becoming prime minister in Israel. The bill has been contemplated several times over the past years but never reached the stage where it was submitted but now will most likely be voted on in the Knesset within weeks.
Of course, former Prime Minister and current Opposition Leader, Binyamin Netanyahu, is currently standing trial for a number of very serious offenses and will spend time in jail when convicted. And thus, in a Pavlov-like reaction, the proposal was met with furious condemnation by the Likud party with its members not hesitating to make comparisons to the Iran regime and calling the bill anti-democratic. The reason for this ruckus of course is the allegation that the bill is an attempt at personal revenge by Sa’ar, and that all he is doing is trying to prevent Binyamin Netanyahu from becoming Prime Minister again. Sa’ar who was snubbed by Netanyahu (because of the fear of the latter that Sa’ar would become a serious contender), has vowed already before the elections, that he will introduce a bill preventing Netanyahu from becoming Prime Minister.
So is it personal? A small vendetta between two rival politicians? It probably is, at least to some extent. Of course it may be claimed that Sa’ar is only trying to stop Netanyahu from doing to others what was done to him, but what Netanyahu did at the time, was politics, very dirty politics, to be sure, but politics of the kind that Israel has seen for the past ten or more years. Politics that Sa’ar was part of and at the time did little to stop it.
The opposition to the bill voiced by Interior Minister Ayelet Shaked, is more surprising and reeks more of dirty politics than the rather empty screaming by the Likud. Shaked, whose party is an integral part of the coalition, with her boss, Naftali Bennett being Prime Minister, appears to be trying to have her cake and eat it. On one hand she is well aware of the situation within the coalition and the Knesset, and that her opposition will not have much bearing on the final outcome (Because of the ridiculous “Norwegian Law”, she is not even a Knesset member). Within the coalition there is big desire to “get back” at Netanyahu and force him to end his career, and in the opposition benches, except in the Likud and the Orthodox parties, the sentiment is not much different. Thus, it is very likely the bill will pass. But on the other hand, she is actively (and not only in this instance) trying to keep the road to a right-wing coalition open, possibly even with the approval of Bennett.
Attorney General Mandelblit has already voiced his support for the bill and if required, will defend it in front of the Supreme Court. Justifying his support with the statement that the bill has sufficient controls and will rectify a situation that should have been rectified long ago.
And the argument that it violates the principle of “innocent until proven otherwise”, brought up by Itamar Ben-Gvir (himself a very moral and righteous politician) doesn’t hold up, when it is clear that removing a Prime Minister from office is way more problematic, difficult and traumatic, that preventing someone from becoming one.
But Mandelblit touches upon the most important and general question surrounding this bill. When putting aside political rivalry and revenge, isn’t there a moral, civic side to this story as well? Shouldn’t we (we, “the people”) be greatly disturbed and worried, that a bill like this is necessary at all? Shouldn’t it be self-evident, that somebody who is being accused of such serious crimes, that if convicted, would spend three years or more in prison cannot and should not and may not be a candidate for ANY public office? Of course we already have the despicable example of Aryeh Deri who spent three years in jail after being convicted of bribery, who came back, became a minister and even now sits in the Knesset but isn’t it high time, that if the politicians do not have the moral inclination to retreat in shame after committing (or being accused of) serious crimes, that the law should take action for them?
The argument used by Shaked and others that Mandelblit should not decide who will be Prime Minister is completely off the mark. Mandelblit will not decide who will be Prime Minister. He, through this law, will decide who CANNOTbe Prime Minister, when this person does not have the moral strength to come to such a conclusion by himself.
The argument by the Likud that 30% of the population voted for Netanyahu and want him as Prime Minister, also is completely irrelevant. A majority of voters will choose to abolish income tax if it is proposed to them. That does not mean that is the right thing to do or the moral thing to do.
If the morality of the Israeli voter has sunk so deep that they will demand a criminal (or “alleged” criminal) the law will have to safe the people from themselves and in the process maybe force them to rethink their moral standpoint, without political considerations.
Israel would become a better place.
I hope you found this article interesting and I welcome any comments you may have.
If you register on the site, you will be receiving a notice when new articles are posted.
