At dawn on Thursday March 23, the Israeli Parliament adopted by 61 votes against 47 the first provision of its reform of the judicial system, which has been tearing the country apart for three months and has triggered monster demonstrations. This text is not at the heart of the protests, but it says a lot about the spirit that governs the current political tumult: it makes it almost impossible to dismiss the head of government, Benyamin Netanyahu, on trial for corruption and abuse of trust.
The deputies of the majority thus intended to respond to rumors of a possible decision by the Israeli Supreme Court or the Attorney General to declare the Prime Minister unable to govern because of his legal proceedings. From now on, he can only be removed from power by his own decision or that of three quarters of the ministers – in the event of disagreement, the Knesset will be called upon to decide, by a large majority.
heated debates
Coalition members passed a law “obscene and corrupt like thieves in the night”, denounced the leader of the opposition, former Prime Minister Yair Lapid. The former ally of Mr. Netanyahu, the nationalist Avigdor Lieberman, for his part, promised to challenge the text before the Supreme Court. “We will not allow the State of Israel to become a Netanyahu monarchy”, he said after the vote. The Knesset committee, in charge of the progress of the examination of the project, preferred to use the accelerated procedure: the debates, stormy due in particular to the many amendments tabled by the opposition, were limited to sixteen hours.
Originally, the bill tabled by the leader of the Likud, Ofir Katz, planned to declare a prime minister unable to govern except for health reasons, without control by the judiciary. The final approved version removes all oversight from the Advocate General, but leaves it to the Supreme Court. The text goes back to one of the so-called fundamental laws, which serve as the Constitution in Israel, and which was applied in 2006 to remove Prime Minister Ariel Sharon from power after a stroke that left him in a coma.
The Supreme Court, on the other hand, had decided not to resort to it in the case of Ehud Olmert: a petition had been addressed to the judges, in 2008, asking them to ask the Attorney General to dismiss him because of a judicial inquiry in course against him. “It is clear that such a statement in the context of a criminal investigation of a prime minister is an extreme measure that should be taken only in rare and exceptional cases.”had then justified the Court.
You have 50.22% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.