Netanyahu Trial's Potential to Unlock Unity Government

Developments in the trial of Benjamin Netanyahu could potentially break Israel's political deadlock, as the election results left no bloc with a clear majority. Three judges in Jerusalem may hold the key to resolving the political stalemate.

A message from the judges to the Attorney General could significantly impact the legal system, remove a major political obstacle, and pave the way for a unity government. Presiding Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman noted the unusual nature of the proceedings, while Judge Oded Shacham revealed the panel had considered directly summoning the Attorney General. The defense, he stated, was responding to an open door regarding the prosecution's potential difficulty in proving the bribery charge in Case 4000, a point the judges had raised in June 2023 and again in June of the current year, with the prosecution refusing to remove the charge.

Further drama unfolded as former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit testified about serious investigative actions he had not authorized, including a wiretap that angered him and a flawed investigative tactic against Nir Hefetz. Mandelblit also admitted to deliberately withholding full clarification of the Hefetz incident to avoid jeopardizing the Netanyahu investigation. Judge Moshe Baram questioned how such testimony about illegal actions could be disregarded, while Friedman-Feldman reiterated the trial's unusual nature and Shacham's request to speak directly with the head of the prosecution.

The judges' actions, including two judicial warnings, double refusals by the prosecution, and new testimony about investigative conduct, signal a desire to elevate the discourse to the highest level. The message to Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara appears to be that the decision to proceed rests with her, and if she insists on continuing, the final ruling will be theirs.

A verdict of acquittal, especially if accompanied by strong statements about law enforcement conduct, could cause a significant upheaval extending to the prosecution, the Attorney General's office, the political system, and public trust in state institutions. In the current politically paralyzed environment, the courtroom might offer a solution. With no bloc able to form a government independently after the elections (Netanyahu's bloc 53 seats, the change bloc 48, and Arab parties 19), the end of Netanyahu's trial without a conviction could alter the political equation. The legal argument that served as a primary barrier to partnering with Netanyahu would lose its validity, forcing politicians like Naftali Bennett, Gabi Ashkenazi, and Avigdor Lieberman to confront their actual objections rather than relying on the trial's existence. This could reopen discussions about coalition possibilities, making a unity government, previously deemed impossible, a viable option.

The trial, which has been a focal point of national division, might paradoxically become a path to reconciliation. While the judges' role is to adjudicate, their legal decision could achieve what the elections could not: breaking the political impasse. If the trial concludes without a conviction, Bennett, Ashkenazi, and Lieberman will face a moment of truth, needing to explain to the public why a unity government and national responsibility are not pursued. This presents a historic opportunity for the trial, a symbol of national division, to become a key to reconciliation, ushering in a new chapter of national responsibility rather than revenge or boycotts.