Mandelblit's Alleged Remark Shifts Focus in Netanyahu Trial

A purported statement by former Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, suggesting a case that would "save democracy," could fundamentally alter the perception of the trial against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Professor Moshe Cohen-Eliya suggests that if Mandelblit indeed made such a remark, the focus shifts from the evidence against Netanyahu to whether the prosecution's motives were tainted by fear of Netanyahu and his proposed judicial reform.

Cohen-Eliya argues that such a statement, if true, might reveal a deeper issue within Israel's "juristocracy", the perceived tendency of a legal and bureaucratic elite to view socio-political groups on the right, such as the religious and Mizrahi communities, as threats to their historical hegemony. This perceived threat is then framed as a "danger to democracy" or a slide into "dictatorship," when in reality, it may represent a threat to the elite's power.

The professor posits that this alleged statement could link the decision to indict Netanyahu to the "juristocracy's" aggressive efforts to maintain its power, which he claims is disproportionately large compared to other Western democracies. Netanyahu, in this view, represents a new hegemonic force seeking to return power to elected officials through judicial reform, thereby threatening the existing power structure.

This raises concerns that a strong motive may have existed within the prosecution and the "juristocracy" to pursue unprecedented cases, potentially on weakened evidence. Cohen-Eliya also addresses the narrative that Israel might become a dictatorship akin to Hungary or Poland, a comparison often made by the Israeli left. He notes that this narrative draws parallels with right-wing parties in those countries seeking to curb judicial power, which they perceive as captured by a rival political camp. However, Cohen-Eliya asserts that the push to restore power to elected institutions does not inherently turn a regime into a dictatorship.