After Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu’s testimony in his corruption trial on Tuesday, with further hearings scheduled for Wednesday afternoon, U.S. legal expert Professor Alan Dershowitz spoke to Ynet about the unprecedented situation of an incumbent prime minister facing trial for the first time in Israeli history.
Professor Dershowitz, how feasible is it for a prime minister to manage the affairs of Israel while simultaneously testifying multiple times a week for a month? “It’s completely impractical, completely unreasonable, and this case demonstrates unequivocally that the American system is far superior to the Israeli one. Under the American system, a sitting president cannot be subjected to a trial while in office.”
“Being president is a full-time role, and no prime minister should have to choose between tackling critical issues like Syria, confronting Hezbollah, or negotiating the release of hostages, while simultaneously defending themselves against accusations related to cigars and champagne.”
“This approach is misguided. There’s no reason Netanyahu’s trial couldn’t be delayed until he’s out of office and a private citizen again. This situation only highlights why the American model works. If anyone ever attempts to alter the American system, we will use the situation in Israel as a clear example of why the American system is far superior.”
Do you believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu is being unfairly targeted by the legal system? “From what I’ve seen, the case lacks sufficient strength to warrant criminal charges. The standards are unclear. Many countries have clear rules, like $1,000 being the threshold for goods or items, but nothing more or less. It shouldn’t be left to the discretion of prosecutors and judges to decide what’s too much.”
“There are far too many gray areas in this case, and such ambiguities should never serve as the basis for criminal charges. The line should be made crystal clear, but it isn’t.”
Do you think Netanyahu’s presence in court as a defendant harms Israel, especially during such critical times? “I don’t believe he’s causing any harm. The real harm comes from the system. He should be allowed to govern the country full-time, 24/7.”
“He needs the freedom to make difficult decisions, such as whether Israel should take action in the Golan Heights, whether chemical factories in Syria should be bombed, or how to approach the return of hostages. That’s a full-time responsibility. The problem lies with the system, which detracts from his ability to focus on these matters.”
“While Netanyahu may claim he can balance both roles, the real question is whether he can perform them as effectively. My stance is that he should be able to lead as the elected prime minister of Israel without interference. This doesn’t place him above the law; it simply acknowledges the reality that being a prime minister requires undivided attention.”
To your knowledge, how involved is U.S. President-elect Trump in the negotiations concerning hostages? How important is this to him? “We can’t say for sure, but President Trump’s election alone has already had a significant impact on the Middle East. There’s no doubt that Trump’s election has strengthened deterrence against Iran launching an attack on Israel.”
“Remember, Iran had vowed to attack immediately, but after Trump’s election, that threat mysteriously disappeared. Now, Trump has stated that he wants the hostages released by January 20. Whether that will happen remains to be seen, but it’s a positive development. From Israel’s perspective, it’s reassuring that Trump is taking a hard line on the hostages. We all hope it leads to a favorable outcome.”
Can we expect Trump’s inauguration to speed up a resolution for the hostages? “We certainly hope so. Trump is a firm believer in peace through strength. He believes peace is achieved through a show of strength.”
What do you anticipate the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu will be like under the new administration? “I can tell you this: just weeks after Trump’s first election, I was at Mar-a-Lago having dinner with a friend when Trump walked in. He turned to me and said, ‘You, I have to talk to you.’ I responded, ‘Why?’ He said, ‘You’re a friend of Prime Minister Netanyahu.’ I replied, ‘Yes.’”
“And then he said, ‘I want to use you to send messages to your friend, the prime minister.’ I agreed, and I continue to serve, I hope, as a bridge between two people I know well. Of course, now Trump can communicate directly with the prime minister, whom he knows personally.”
“He can speak to the prime minister’s team, many of whom are also close to Israel. People like Mike Huckabee and others. This relationship has been cultivated over many years, and I believe it will benefit both countries greatly.”
Were those messages positive, at least? “Yes, the messages were positive, though they often raised questions—issues that needed to be handled indirectly rather than directly. Look, I’m happy to assist any U.S. president, whether they’re liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. I’m American, and I’m a Zionist.”
“Everyone knows my views on Israel and America, and I’m more than happy to help both countries in any way that serves both nations’ interests.”
{Matzav.com}