Despite reports, coalition seems unlikely to attempt to halt PM’s trial legislatively
‘There’s no legal precedent for a piece of legislation canceling a trial that is already in progress,’ says coalition source, as some Likud MKs also downplay prospect of such a law
Sam Sokol is the Times of Israel's political correspondent. He was previously a reporter for the Jerusalem Post, Jewish Telegraphic Agency and Haaretz. He is the author of "Putin’s Hybrid War and the Jews"
US President Donald Trump’s demand for the cancellation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ongoing criminal trial generated enthusiastic support among members of the ruling coalition, with ministers and lawmakers claiming the long-running legal saga was “personal persecution” of the premier and “a coup against democracy.”
Among those adding their voices to the chorus was Knesset Constitution, Law and Justice Committee chairman Simcha Rothman, who declared that Trump was correct, even if the US president’s demand constituted inappropriate interference in Israeli domestic affairs.
Instead of having Trump intervene, President Isaac Herzog, who holds the pardon power, should step in to “stop this foolish saga,” Rothman insisted, adding that “if he does not do so, the Knesset can and should do it.”
While the Knesset does not have the authority to cancel the prime minister’s trial, pro-Netanyahu lawmakers have previously threatened to legislate the removal of the crime of fraud and breach of trust from the criminal code. In the highly unlikely event that the Knesset were to do so — and assuming such legislation would apply retroactively to Netanyahu’s graft cases — Netanyahu would only be left facing a bribery charge in Case 4000.
Speculation regarding possible legislative intervention in Netanyahu’s trial grew significantly over the weekend, with the Kan public broadcaster reporting that a number of unspecified legislative initiatives were being considered, some of which included a push to hold early elections.
However, conversations with Likud lawmakers and a coalition insider with direct knowledge of internal deliberations indicated there was very little chance of the Knesset taking action to bring Netanyahu’s trial to an early end, even as high-ranking legislative officials continue to demand that it be halted.
“There will be no early elections and there will be no legislation related to the Netanyahu trial. The prime minister himself is not interested in such legislation,” asserted firebrand MK Tally Gotliv, one of Likud’s representatives on Rothman’s committee.
“There is no chance” that personal legislation will be brought to the Knesset and “even if bills are submitted, they will not advance at all,” she added, only days after calling on Trump to impose sanctions on Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara and Supreme Court President Isaac Amit.
“I am not aware of such efforts and I don’t think the elections will be brought forward,” agreed Likud MK Ariel Kallner, an alternate member of the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee.
While there was talk about proposing a so-called French Law — which would prohibit putting the prime minister on trial while in office — the idea was quickly dismissed in Likud legislative circles following Trump’s remarks, a coalition insider with direct knowledge of lawmakers’ deliberations told The Times of Israel on Sunday.
Lawmakers were advised that “even if we could get a majority to pass such legislation, you cannot do this retroactively. There’s no legal precedent for a piece of legislation canceling a trial that is ready in progress,” the source continued.
“You would not be able to stop the trial based on any piece of legislation, at least that could get past the legal department in the Knesset. And even if the legal department in the Knesset would allow it to move forward,” the source added, “there’s no way in hell it doesn’t get thrown out by the Supreme Court on day one.”
At the same time, there remains a possibility that lawmakers could decide to push “a French law that would go into effect after Netanyahu’s term” and then “follow that up with a media campaign” to delegitimize his trial, the source added, while calling such a move highly unlikely.
According to the source, coalition lawmakers also raised the prospect in internal discussions of linking a deal to end the Gaza war and return the hostages with a halt to Netanyahu’s trial. But that “is also pretty unlikely” because Hamas is preventing a deal and there is no guarantee that the attorney general or court would agree, the source added.
“As time goes on, all these scenarios become less and less likely,” the source declared.
However, something could still be brewing politically this week, with Netanyahu asking faction leaders to ensure that their MKs show up on Monday and throughout the week.
“That’s not a usual thing. Usually, if Netanyahu is doing that, that means he’s nervous about something, meaning he feels that he needs everyone there for a specific majority for something,” the source stated. “In general, I think the next four weeks until we go into the recess are very key for him for a number of reasons.”
But even if the coalition is unlikely to attempt to halt Netanyahu’s trial legislatively, that doesn’t mean that lawmakers have given up on defending the prime minister.
As Netanyahu presented his case for postponing this week’s court hearings on diplomatic and security grounds on Sunday afternoon, Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana of Likud publicly called on the judges in the prime minister’s trial to consider halting the proceedings completely. (The judges agreed on Sunday to cancel this week’s trial sessions.)
The temporary pause in the trial requested by Netanyahu could provide an opportunity to reach an agreement to end the trial or for the court to “expunge the indictment” against the premier on procedural grounds, Ohana stated.
“The court is now considering a request to postpone the hearings scheduled for [the coming] two weeks,” Ohana wrote in a lengthy post on X in which he advanced what he described as a “practical, realistic, sane and logical proposal to end” the trial.
Ohana argued that the parties involved could end the legal affair by coming to some sort of agreement. Alternatively, he suggested, the court could declare a mistrial on procedural grounds.
“The judges have a real opportunity to take part in history, and to redeem the people of Israel. I hope they will not miss it,” Ohana claimed.
The Times of Israel Community.