Knesset clears way for Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz to rule Israel

The Israeli parliament has passed legislation approving a new coalition government framework with Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz sharing power.

Benjamin Netanyahu and Benny Gantz say the new government would be sworn in on May 13. Pictures: AFP

The Israeli parliament, the Knesset, passed legislation on Thursday evening approving a new coalition government framework, thereby paving the path for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his rival-turned-partner Benny Gantz to join together in a controversial power-sharing deal.

The legislation, which passed easily in a 72-36 vote in the parliament, comes one day after Israel’s Supreme Court ruled that it would not intervene in the new arrangement or prevent Mr Netanyahu from leading the government, despite a corruption indictment against him. The decision by panel of 11 high court judges ­essentially ended the country’s prolonged political stalemate and will prevent Israel from plunging into a fourth consecutive election in just over a year.

All that remains to be done is acquire the procedural signatures of 61 legislators — a parliamentary majority — in favour of Mr ­Netanyahu as prime minister-designate to be sent to Israel’s ceremonial president before a midnight Thursday deadline.

With a solid majority in hand, Mr Netanyahu and former challenger Mr Gantz have already ­announced they will swear in their new government next week.

After battling to three inconclusive elections over the past year and with polls predicting a continued stalemate, Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gantz, a former military chief, announced last month that they would be joining forces to steer the country through the coronavirus crisis and its severe economic fallout.

Critics and good-government groups said the deal was illegal and challenged it in the Supreme Court. They argued that the law should bar an official charged with serious crimes from continuing as prime minister.

They also objected to the newly created position of “alternate prime minister”, a post that could allow Mr Netanyahu to remain in office throughout his corruption trial and a potential ­appeals process to follow.

The new position will enjoy all the trappings of a prime minister, including an official residence and, vital for Mr Netanyahu, an exemption from a law that requires public officials who are not prime minister to resign if charged with a crime.

Over two days of deliberations this week, the court considered the arguments before ruling there were no legal grounds to prevent the government from taking ­office. It had reviewed eight separate petitions challenging the deal between Mr Netanyahu and Mr Gantz.

“The decision we’ve reached is not meant to detract from the seriousness of the pending charges against MP Benjamin Netanyahu … nor from the difficulty of the tenure of a prime minister charged with criminal acts,” the judges ruled. “It is the result … of having the presumption of innocence.”

Mr Netanyahu’s allies hailed the decision and said it upheld the will of Israeli voters. “The judges in Jerusalem acted well not to intervene. There is a sovereign in Israel — the nation — and it has spoken,” said Likud Culture Minister Miri Regev.

Mr Netanyahu has been indicted with fraud, breach of trust and accepting bribes in a series of scandals involving trading favours with wealthy media moguls. His trial is set to start on May 24.

He denies any wrongdoing, and since his indictment last northern autumn, he has repeatedly lashed out at the country’s legal system. He and his political allies have taken special aim at the high court, accusing it of overreach and political interference.

Mr Gantz, who is slated to become defence minister during the government’s first 18 months before taking over from Mr Netanyahu as premier, insists his presence will temper the assault on the legal establishment and install a sense of decorum to counter the divisiveness that had characterised Mr Netanyahu’s successive caretaker governments.

Their unorthodox arrangement, in which each will have virtual veto power over the other’s decisions, required new legislation that was harshly criticised by the opposition and civil rights groups.

AP, Wall Street Journal