Mandelblit travesty

The editorial “Decisions despite elections” (February 3) addresses the decision of Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit to make his recommendation on a possible indictment of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. As noted, this will be an announcement of intent only, and that the final decision would occur after a yearlong hearing.

The editorial suggests, based on a projected announcement date of February 21, that this would be enough time for Netanyahu to defend himself before the voting public by the April 9 election. How can this be? He is surely allowed to properly defend himself in accordance with Israel’s well-regarded rule of law, but what is suggested does not stop him being judged by the constant drizzle of leaks, does not allow for proper presentation of evidence, nor allow for cross-examination of witnesses. If he were to be exonerated at the ballot box, would this mean that a formal judicial process would no longer be needed? Of course not.

Israel’s legal process does not include trial by jury, to my mind a good thing. I remember well the horrors of serving on a jury trial in Canada, and can understand the wisdom of decisions being made only by highly trained judges. What is suggested is more like a referendum by the voting public over a period of less than seven weeks, with information being leaked out by various actors through the unfriendly filter of the press. What a travesty.

DAVID SMITH

Ra’anana