High Court justices challenge Knesset lawyer Yitzhak Bart’s attempt to differentiate between the lawmakers’ motives for passing the prime minister recusal law and the purpose the law ends up serving.
Bart notes that the motives concern the past — the specific circumstances in which the law was passed, which indeed have a personal nature in shielding Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from possibly being forced to step down — while the purpose concerns the future and transcends the motives.
Justice Yitzhak Amit responds: “When the law is colored from head to foot in a motive, the question is does this not influence the purpose of the law?”
Justice Ofer Grosskopf says: “The motives can affect the purpose. The purpose of the law was to revoke the possibility of ordering a prime minister to recuse himself due to violating a conflict of interest agreement, which is relevant to the current situation.”
Justice Daphne Barak-Erez adds: “What you’re saying is that there can never be personal legislation as long as there is a clause which applies in the future. So, according to you, there’s no such thing as personal legislation.”