Ex-deputy AG: Netanyahu trial must end in plea deal, quickly, to stop current ‘lunacy’

Former deputy attorney general Raz Nizri said Thursday that the corruption trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “must end in a plea deal” as soon as possible to bring an end to what he called the “lunacy” that has engulfed Israel for the past few years.

In an interview with Channel 12 on Thursday, Nizri, a judicial conservative, reiterated previous remarks that a plea bargain in the cases against the premier would benefit the prosecution and the defense, as well as Israel as a country. He also decried the current polarized discourse, the hostile rhetoric and threats by members of Netanyahu’s coalition to fire Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara and the manner in which the hardline government is pushing to radically overhaul Israel’s judiciary.

Nizri has been vocal about his opposition to charging Netanyahu in Case 4000, also known as the Bezeq-Walla case, which focuses on allegations that Netanyahu, during a previous tenure as prime minister, authorized regulatory decisions that financially benefited Bezeq telecommunications giant shareholder Shaul Elovitch by hundreds of millions of shekels. In return, Netanyahu allegedly held sway over media coverage from the Walla news site, also owned by Elovitch.

“From the get-go, I thought there are certain cases in which it is right to file an indictment and there are those where it’s not,” Nizri said in the Channel 12 interview Thursday. “The prosecution and the defense both have an interest in being done with it. It’s in the interest of the country which has been in a state of lunacy for about four years.”

Netanyahu faces charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust in the case, and faces additional charges of fraud and breach of trust — in Case 1000, which concerns gifts he allegedly inappropriately received from billionaire benefactors, and in Case 2000, in which he allegedly negotiated to obtain positive media coverage in a newspaper in exchange for curtailing its competitors.

His trial began in May 2020, and is predicted to stretch on for several more years unless a plea bargain can be reached.

Judges in Netanyahu’s trial sparked an uproar last month following leaked comments where they advised the prosecution and the defense behind closed doors that with most of the prosecution’s witnesses heard, they believe the bribery charge against the prime minister in Case 4000 will be hard to substantiate.

Netanyahu denies all the allegations against him, and claims the charges were fabricated by a biased police force and state prosecution service, overseen by a weak attorney general, in league with political opponents and the leftist media.

In his interview Thursday, Nizri, who left the Justice Ministry last year after failing to make a shortlist of candidates to become attorney general, voiced his opposition to a High Court of Justice petition seeking to remove Netanyahu from office over alleged breaches of a conflict of interest agreement — which the top court said Thursday that it would agree to hear.

The agreement, which Netanyahu signed with former attorney general Avichai Mandelblit, requires him to avoid involvement in judicial legislation that could affect the outcome of his cases.

The petitioners based their claim on a letter written by Baharav-Miara in March, informing Netanyahu that he had violated the conflict of interest agreement, and adding that any further involvement on his part in the coalition’s judicial overhaul would be “illegal and tainted by a conflict of interest.”

The strongly worded letter from Baharav-Miara had come after Netanyahu announced that he would thenceforth ignore the conflict of interest deal and involve himself in the deeply controversial judicial overhaul legislation. Hours earlier, the Knesset had passed a law designed to shield Netanyahu from being removed from office for breaking the agreement’s boundaries.

The overhaul was frozen by Netanyahu days later for a period of several months to allow for compromise talks with the opposition on an agreed judicial reform, putting the matter on the back burner. Parts of the overhaul legislation are now moving forward again, however.

Nizri said that both the petition and the judicial overhaul bills constituted illegitimate attempts to alter the political landscape by judicial means.

“I don’t think it’s right for the court to determine who will be prime minister, it’s dangerous for democracy,” Nizri said of the possibility that justices will remove Netanyahu from office by determining that his involvement in the overhaul legislation may affect the outcome of his trial and puts him in a conflict of interest.

Nizri also said that while he thinks many changes are needed in the justice system, he opposes the current government’s far-reaching judicial overhaul legislation.

Netanyahu’s coalition “has all sorts of proposed bills that are meant to engineer or stymie the justice system, and this must not happen,” he said. On the other hand, he noted, “the left too needs to understand that politics can’t be engineered using the judiciary.”

The former deputy attorney general criticized a bill being advanced by the coalition that would remove judicial review of politicians’ decisions using the “reasonableness” doctrine, which passed in a first Knesset reading this week. The proposed law, which was amended to further entrench positions, bars courts from invalidating or even discussing government and ministers’ decisions based on their “reasonableness,” an established judicial test.

Critics of the bill — the latest push in the coalition’s plan to curb judicial checks on its own power — have said that the coalition is pushing to eliminate the reasonableness test in order to serve specific political goals.

Three of these goals — returning a coalition party head to the cabinet after the High Court of Justice nixed their appointment as “unreasonable in the extreme,” possibly making good on ministerial threats to fire the attorney general, and enabling the justice minister to not convene the Judicial Selection Committee until the coalition can make changes to its composition — would be specifically protected by the bill’s amended language.

“My judicial approach is conservative, but I don’t agree with the bill,” Nizri said, referring to it as an “extreme solution” and saying it could leave “destruction” that would be hard to remedy.

“I think it’s right to narrow the reasonableness doctrine, which is a subjective concept. Even judges who sit on the same panel do not feel the same about reasonableness,” he said.

Nizri also criticized vocal attacks against the attorney general and the Justice Ministry, saying it is a body where “there are hundreds of lawyers who do their work faithfully,” and the generalized slander [against them] creates an injustice. At the same time, there is also an inability to correct and make changes, these two facts are not contradictory.”

“It is necessary to correct but not to destroy [the judicial system],” said Nizri, adding that the coalition must “do it in a way that preserves the legal system.”

The renewed push to overhaul the judiciary has reignited mass anti-government demonstrations, with another day of nationwide protests planned for this coming Monday.

The day, branded a “day of resistance,” comes following Tuesday’s “day of disruption,” in which thousands of anti-government protesters blocked streets across the country in response to the Knesset passing the first reading of a controversial bill to curtail the Supreme Court’s oversight powers.

According to organizers, Monday will once again see protest action and road blockings across the country, with further disruptive actions taking place throughout the week.

At the Sunday cabinet meeting this week, coalition members attacked Baharav-Miara and other Justice Ministry officials who were summoned to the meeting, over authorities’ handling of lawbreaking during the months-long demonstrations against the government. Several calls were also made for her dismissal.

She and the other Justice Ministry officials were called before the cabinet to discuss how law enforcement agencies have dealt with the massive wave of protests against the government’s fervent efforts to overhaul the judiciary, which have included blocking highways and other forms of civil disobedience.

Ministers have bristled at what they view as overly soft handling of demonstrators who harass and heckle them wherever they go, stage protests at their homes, and block key roads for hours at a time. Several have called for the arrest and prosecution of those blocking roads and engaging in other acts of civil disobedience.

Nizri said that for this “terrible polarization” to be mitigated, “no side should win.”

“If the coalition thinks it can trample protesters who take to the streets with an honest sense that the overhaul violates democratic principles, it’s a dangerous thing. A one-sided victory is a loss for the country,” he said.