It's hard to guess where the High Court of Justice panel will come down on the matter of the coalition deal between Benny Gantz and Benjamin Netanyahu. In the discussion held Sunday, which focused on Netanyahu's acceptability to serve as prime minister, it appears as if the panel was leaning toward approving him with restrictions with respect to conflicts of interest, such as the issue of appointments to law enforcement positions. On Monday, the justices probed Rabilio and Halevi, the attorneys representing each side, as well as the representative of Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit, Aner Helman.
It seems as if they want to prevent a constitutional train wreck, which means that the process of forming a government will continue until the task is complete – with the court leaving the door open to more petitions. In other words, they aren't stopping the train, they aren't waving a red flag, rather, they are alternately holding up red and green flags. That is what they have attorney Eliad Shraga for, and he might be moving into the Supreme Court building for the next six months or so.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter
On the other hand, Chief Justice Esther Hayut and Justice Menachem (Meni) Mazuz have made remarks that indicate they are opposed in principle to the manner in which attorney Dafna Holtz-Lechner presented her case. Holtz-Lechner definitely represented the standard approach in certain social circles, which holds that elections do not matter. As far as she is concerned, the size of the Likud faction is insignificant, as is the fact that the electoral win is down to the person who is going to be prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
It has never occurred to Holtz-Lechner, Eliad Shraga, or some of the justices that voters didn't go to the polls to vote for or against the chief justice or the attorney general. They clearly and explicitly cast votes for a number of parties and familiar leaders. Therefore the repeated demand that Netanyahu be ousted, so that the High Court can rule on norms is public audacity. It seems as if Hayut and a few of the justices, including Dafna Barak-Erez, were displeased with this attitude on the part of the petitioners. Barak-Erez rebuffed the attempt to drag the judges into a debate over political agreements.
It's possible that the many questions posed by the justices were designed to make it clear to themselves – and the parties' lawyers – the intention behind each and every article of the deal. Still, there was a sense that they didn't actually understand what politicians have to do to prepare a unity government. The complicated coalition deal and the legislative processes that go along with it could be compared to building a sandcastle – it takes a lot of effort, as well as delicate and balanced work. Then a few kids from a different neighborhood come and say to the ones who built the sandcastle, "Tell us why we shouldn't jump all over it." The structure can be destroyed with a single kick.
The Supreme Court, as Dr. Yoash Meisler defines it, is a passive entity. It needs an external body that will activate it and give it governing power. The justices are very influenced by the narratives against a unity government that the media broadcasts, but it looks as if they are hesitant about the attempt to turn them into political chess pieces. Mazuz said that explicitly to Holtz-Lechner: "This is a court."
