Dr. Suhail Diab: The trial is unprecedented in Israel’s history, with its prime minister appearing before the judiciary during his term, and will become a decisive turning point.

Muhammad Abu Allan Daraghmeh: Predicting the outcome of Netanyahu's trial is extremely difficult... and it will not have any impact on the course of the war because he has not been convicted yet

Antoine Shalhat: Netanyahu aspires to reshape the Israeli judiciary to serve his personal goals and reduce the severity of potential sentences against him

Ihab Jabareen: The trial may aim to relieve pressures related to Netanyahu’s accountability in the International Criminal Court to preserve the credibility of the prime minister’s position

Fayez Abbas: Netanyahu faces challenges that are not limited to judicial rulings, but extend to the possibility of his removal from his position as prime minister

Yasser Manna: There is consensus among the various opposition factions that the judiciary is the only way to remove Netanyahu from power

The trial of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is causing widespread controversy, as it comes in an exceptional context in which the internal Israeli conflict overlaps with the repercussions of the war on several fronts. This trial represents an unprecedented event in the history of Israel since its establishment, as no prime minister has ever appeared before the judiciary while in office, making it a crucial stage in determining the features of the political and judicial system.

A number of writers, political analysts and specialists, in separate interviews with “I”, believe that Netanyahu’s trial may be an attempt to settle scores between the pillars of the Israeli occupation state.

They point out that Netanyahu may exploit the trial and incitement against the court as if it is obstructing him from his role in which he is trying to portray himself as a defender of “greater Israeli interests,” considering that the trial is hindering his efforts to manage security and political crises, while the trial itself may be an attempt by the deep state in Israel to ease international pressure to hold Netanyahu accountable, since it has a judiciary that holds even the prime minister accountable.

The trial coincides with developments that have a profound impact on the Israeli scene.

Political science professor and Israeli affairs expert Dr. Suhail Diab points out that the trial of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on corruption charges coincides with internal and external developments that have a profound impact on the Israeli scene.

According to Diab, this trial is unprecedented in Israel’s history for a prime minister to appear before the judiciary during his term, and it will become a decisive turning point in Israel’s history, as the repercussions of the ongoing war in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria intersect with a fierce internal conflict over the nature of the judicial and institutional system.

Dr. Diab explains that Netanyahu’s trial takes on an unprecedented character because it coincides with two prominent situations: the first, the raging war on several fronts in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, and the political and security repercussions that accompany it; and the second, the continuing struggle over the judiciary, media and security services within the framework of what he described as the “judicial coup” that began before Operation “Noah’s Flood” and continued during it.

Diab points out that the trial is not separate from these contexts, as the corruption files against Netanyahu include charges related to manipulating the media and exploiting it to achieve political and personal gains, which directly links the trial to the conflict based on institutions.

Diab points out that Netanyahu is living in a state of extreme anxiety, as during the past five years he has resorted to every possible means to postpone the trial, but now he is fighting a battle for political and personal survival, by prolonging the trial in the hope of unexpected developments that may save him from his inevitable fate.

The court, in turn, decided to continue the trial procedures despite the security and war conditions. Diab attributes this to several reasons, including that the case began eight years ago, and the indictment was filed five years ago. The court also previously responded to several requests for postponement submitted by Netanyahu, but things have now come to an end after Netanyahu signed a written pledge to separate his role as prime minister from the trial procedures.

Diab describes Netanyahu's strategies as relying on exploiting three main axes: the trial, the war, and the internal debate in Israeli society.

Diab points out that Netanyahu is trying to present himself to the Israeli public as a leader working to protect “Israel’s greater interests,” while describing the trial as a waste of time that hinders his efforts to save the country.

Diab gives an example of what happened after his six-hour court appearance, when Netanyahu avoided talking about the trial and instead focused on military operations in Syria, appearing as a defender of Israel’s security in the face of a court that robbed him of the time needed to “serve the people.”

According to Diab, Netanyahu exploited the prisoner exchange file with Gaza to send messages to the families of Israeli prisoners, trying to hold the court responsible for delaying the completion of the deal, in a move that reflects his efforts to link internal and external files to strengthen his position before the court and public opinion.

Diab stresses that the Israeli judiciary realizes that the trial is not just an ordinary case, but rather part of a broader struggle related to the future of the Israeli judicial system.

Diab explains that the court sees the case as an opportunity to affirm the independence of the judiciary and hold accountable even the highest officials, in a message directed to the Israeli interior and the international community.

Diab points out that the trial comes despite Netanyahu's ongoing attempts to undermine the judicial system, including his attacks on the judiciary and the media and changing the nature of the security and military institutions.

Diab believes that the court views Netanyahu's trial as a final step to prevent the completion of the "judicial coup", which represents a direct threat to the so-called "deep state" in Israel.

Regarding the trial's impact on the war, Diab points out that revealing details of the corruption cases could lead to a further decline in Netanyahu's popularity, which would increase internal pressure on him.

Diab explains that the court is betting that the erosion of popular support for Netanyahu will weaken his position in the war and in other internal files, which may accelerate his judicial and political accountability.

Diab points out that the trial may affect international positions towards Netanyahu, especially with regard to the decisions of the International Criminal Court, as Israel seeks to present an image of the independence of its judiciary, which may reduce international pressure on it.

Diab believes that the trial represents the “last battle” for both Netanyahu and the Israeli judiciary. On the part of the judiciary, he seeks to prove its independence and protect the “democratic system,” and on the part of Netanyahu, the trial represents an attempt at political and personal survival.

A complex issue...and thorny files

Writer and expert on Israeli affairs, Muhammad Abu Allan Daraghmeh, believes that predicting the outcome of the trial of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is extremely difficult, as the path that the case may take depends on several variable factors, such as the evidence that will be presented to the court, the strength of the defense, and the strategy of Netanyahu’s legal team.

Draghmeh confirms that the details of the case are still not completely clear to the public, which makes it difficult to extrapolate its outcome.

Draghmeh explains that Netanyahu's case is complex, as it includes thorny files that include the testimonies of many witnesses and the involvement of multiple parties.

Draghmeh points out that the trial of a prime minister is different from the trial of an ordinary citizen, as he cannot be arrested or tried every day due to the nature of his position and the sensitivity of the case. Draghmeh confirms that the trial will continue for a long time, perhaps extending to years, due to the complexity of the case and its multiple dimensions.

Draghmeh points out that the court rejected Netanyahu's defense team's attempts to postpone the witness hearings under the pretext of the ongoing war, and despite agreeing to reduce the length of Netanyahu's appearance before the court, the Israeli judiciary insisted on continuing the procedures in a way that would not affect the course of the trial.

In this context, Draghmeh points out that the Israeli judiciary seeks to highlight the principle of equality before the law when it comes to criminal cases, as Netanyahu is not distinguished from others in these matters.

Draghmeh believes that Netanyahu's trial will not have any impact on the course of the war, whether in Gaza, southern Lebanon, or any other front in the region.

Draghmeh asserts that Netanyahu is trying to exploit the war as a pretext to evade or postpone the trial, but the court has shown determination to complete the legal procedures despite the state of war.

Draghmeh points out that Netanyahu's trial will not affect his policies or his leadership role in the ongoing war, while Draghmeh believes that this trial, despite its importance, will not change anything on the political or military level, as Netanyahu will continue to implement his aggressive and settlement policies, exploiting the war to strengthen his position.

Draghmeh believes that the trial will not bring about a fundamental change in the Israeli political scene, as Netanyahu, who is still in the trial phase and has not yet been convicted, will remain in office and continue implementing his policies without being affected by the criminal cases brought against him.

Draghmeh explains that these issues require a long time to resolve, which gives him room for political movement and manoeuvre internally and externally.

Draghmeh points out that this trial represents a test for the Israeli judiciary, which seeks to confirm its independence and ability to hold everyone accountable without exception, even in the midst of major crises such as war. At the same time, the trial reflects Netanyahu’s attempts to use his position and the war crisis to postpone accountability and continue implementing his political projects.

Scenarios open to several possibilities

Antoine Shalhat, a writer and political analyst specializing in Israeli affairs, believes that the scenarios for the trial of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are open to several possibilities, but the most likely scenario is his conviction on some of the charges against him, which include bribery, breach of trust, and fraud.

Shalhat explains that these charges are, by Israeli standards, very serious and heavy charges, and despite the possibility of acquitting Netanyahu of some of the charges, a conviction in some of them could mean imprisonment for a considerable period.

Shalhat points out that Netanyahu is striving to prolong the trial, believing that this may give him enough time to change the Israeli judicial system.

According to Shalhat, Netanyahu is working to bring about changes that could lead to the formation of a judicial body that may be more lenient with him in ruling.

According to Shalhat, Netanyahu aspires to reshape the judiciary to serve his personal goals, including reducing the severity of potential sentences against him. However, the success of this strategy remains uncertain.

In addition, Shalhat believes that Netanyahu may seek a general pardon from the Israeli president if matters reach a conviction that means imprisonment, while Shalhat considers that this scenario is also possible, as Netanyahu may be able to avoid going to prison through internal political pressure to obtain a pardon.

Shalhat highlights the importance of the Israeli court’s decision to continue the trial procedures, even during the ongoing war. Despite Netanyahu’s repeated attempts to postpone the trial, citing the state of war, the court refused, stressing that the case had exceeded the acceptable limit of delay. Shalhat points out that the court insisted on summoning Netanyahu to testify last Tuesday, despite the security and political circumstances, considering that justice requires the continuation of the trial in order to reach a final decision on the charges against him.

Regarding the exceptional step of the court’s decision to move its sessions from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv, Shalhat explains that this decision came for several reasons, including avoiding the possibility of the court in Jerusalem being subjected to any attack or bombing, which is being raised as a possibility in light of the security situation. In addition, the fact that the trial is being held in Tel Aviv makes it easier for Netanyahu to be near the military command headquarters, the “Kirya,” which allows him to move quickly between the trial sessions and the meetings of the security and political cabinet.

Shalhat points out that the intense war that Israel was waging has now turned into a war of attrition, which makes it difficult for Netanyahu to continue to justify postponing the trial based on the state of emergency.

Shalhat explains that the war is no longer classified as a permanent state of war according to the precise Israeli definition of the word, which may weaken Netanyahu's position in his attempts to escape judicial accountability.

Shalhat believes that the continuation of the war serves Netanyahu's personal agenda, noting that he is trying to use it to influence the course of the trial.

Shalhat explains that Netanyahu seeks to keep the war going, even if its image changes, in order to create additional justifications to postpone and prolong the trial. The security crisis may also give him the time needed to pressure the judiciary and reconstitute the trial bodies to be more lenient.

However, Shalhat stresses that the court has so far rejected Netanyahu's attempts to exploit the security conditions to prolong the trial, but he indicates that this could change if the security situation worsens or the war escalates to new levels of tension.

According to Shalhat, a long trial may serve Netanyahu’s goals, but it remains risky, as the Israeli judiciary, despite political pressure, still maintains a degree of independence that could ultimately lead to his conviction. A conviction could also be a major blow to his political future, even if he receives a pardon that prevents his imprisonment.

Shalhat asserts that the Netanyahu trial is still full of mystery, and that what is currently happening is only a chapter in a long conflict between Netanyahu and the Israeli judiciary. As the trial continues, the most important question remains: Will Netanyahu be able to overcome this crisis, or will the Israeli judiciary put an end to his political career?

The trial could last for years due to the complex nature of the files.

Writer, political analyst and expert on Israeli affairs, Ihab Jabareen, explains that the trial of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in three corruption and breach of trust cases may extend for years, given the complex nature of these files, which date back about eight years.

Jabareen believes that what is currently happening is nothing more than preliminary sessions within the context of an escalating conflict between the judicial establishment and the ruling establishment in Israel.

Jabareen points out that this conflict has two main dimensions, the first of which is external and is linked to Israel’s attempts to use the trial to enhance its image before the international community. Israel seeks to demonstrate the independence and integrity of the judiciary through the trial of its prime minister, which aims to confirm that it is still a democratic state governed by the rule of law.

Jabareen considers this approach to be part of a diplomatic strategy aimed at reducing international pressures related to Netanyahu’s trial, and not as personal support for him, but rather to maintain the credibility of the position of Prime Minister.

As for the internal dimension, according to Jabareen, it is linked to Netanyahu and his allies’ attempt to isolate the Israeli government’s legal advisor, who is one of his most prominent opponents within the judicial system.

Jabareen believes that this conflict reflects a deep division within the Israeli establishment, with each party trying to strengthen its control at the expense of the other, which makes Netanyahu’s trial a turning point in this conflict.

Jabareen explains that there are three main scenarios that could lead to Netanyahu's trial ending. The first is that Netanyahu is able to reach a behind-the-scenes deal with the judicial establishment, which could lead to a reduced sentence or even the dropping of some of the charges.

The second scenario, according to Jabareen, is that Netanyahu will succeed in controlling the judicial institution through his political alliances, which could lead to his acquittal.

Jabareen points out that the third scenario, which Netanyahu seeks, is to delay the trial for years until he reaches the age of eighty, which may prevent him from being thrown in prison and limit the punishment to a political stigma, which is the least bad option for him.

Despite the complexities of the trial, Jabareen rules out the possibility that the court will take the bold step of removing Netanyahu at the present time. Jabareen explains that Israeli society is experiencing a state of tension and severe division, and cannot tolerate further destabilization, as if that were to happen it could spark unrest similar to the storming of the Capitol by supporters of US President Donald Trump in January 2021, after the end of his presidency.

Jabareen believes that if Netanyahu feels relatively comfortable in the courts as long as there is no direct pressure on him, he may exploit the ongoing war in Gaza and other fronts as a cover to continue stalling the trial.

However, Jabareen points out that if the demonstrations and popular pressure against Netanyahu escalate, he may resort to concluding a political exchange deal to ease the pressure, as happened when the Shalit deal was concluded, and perhaps exploit that to evade the repercussions of the demonstrations.

Netanyahu is in a state of terror due to his interrogation

Israeli affairs writer Fayez Abbas explains that the trial of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on charges of bribery and breach of trust may continue for a long time due to his repeated attempts to postpone giving his testimony in court, noting that Netanyahu is living in a state of terror because of his interrogation.

Abbas believes Netanyahu used the ongoing war in Gaza and other fronts as an excuse to postpone his appearance in court, but the prosecution and the judges running the court rejected his request.

Abbas points out that Netanyahu is accused of bribery and abuse of office, charges that could lead to his conviction and actual imprisonment, according to estimates by criminal law experts.

Abbas points out that the challenges facing Netanyahu are not limited to court rulings, but extend to the possibility of his removal from his position as prime minister. According to the government’s legal advisor, Netanyahu may be deemed ineligible to continue in his position if he shows his preference for running the government at the expense of his legal obligations before the court.

According to Abbas, Netanyahu previously defended before the Supreme Court his ability to run the state and his criminal files in parallel, but if he now acknowledges the priority of running the state over appearing in court, this could be considered a legal basis for his removal.

Despite the pressures facing Netanyahu on the judicial level, Abbas confirms that this trial will not affect the course of the war against the Gaza Strip or military operations on other fronts.

Abbas believes that Netanyahu's trial will not affect the continuation of the war, because war decisions are political and the security services implement the political leadership.

The core issue is whether the court can convict him.

Israeli affairs writer Yasser Manna explains that the core issue in the trial of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lies in the court’s ability to convict him, and whether it will be able to overcome the legal loopholes that Netanyahu relies on to avoid accountability.

Manaa believes that Netanyahu is in a real confrontation with the judiciary, as he is trying to procrastinate and gain time to delay any ruling that might lead to his removal or imprisonment, relying on the long judicial procedures that make any final decision out of reach in the near future.

Manaa points out that part of Netanyahu’s strategy is to buy time, not only to avoid isolation or imprisonment, but also to implement his political project of the Israeli right controlling the state’s joints (the judiciary, the media, and the army). This comes within a broader plan to subjugate Israeli institutions, especially the judiciary, to serve his political project.

Manna points out that despite the success in controlling the media and the army, the judiciary remains the main obstacle facing Netanyahu and his allies, which explains the attempts to impose so-called “judicial reforms” that practically aim to undermine the independence of the judiciary.

Regarding the court’s insistence on trying Netanyahu in light of the war, Manna believes that the Israeli judiciary is trying to prove that it is part of the democratic system, and that it is capable of holding people accountable even in times of crisis, as the Israeli judiciary seeks to establish its image as an independent body that holds everyone accountable without exception, in an attempt to improve Israel’s image before the international community as a democratic state.

In the same context, Manna highlights the role of the Israeli opposition in continuing to pressure Netanyahu through the trials. Despite the deep divisions within the opposition and the absence of a unified leadership or clear program, there is a consensus among its various factions that the judiciary is the only way to remove Netanyahu from power.

On the other hand, Manna believes that Netanyahu's trial will not affect the continuation of the war, but on the contrary, it provides him with a wide margin for maneuver, as Netanyahu seeks to exploit the war as a pretext to avoid focusing on his trial.

Manaa points out that during his appearance before the court the day before yesterday, Tuesday, Netanyahu went out for security consultations under the pretext of managing the war, which raises questions about the seriousness of these consultations and whether they were merely a political show.

According to Manna, Netanyahu is trying to portray himself as a leader who is fighting multiple wars: with the Palestinians, the Lebanese, the Syrians, and the Iranians, in addition to an internal war against the judiciary and the opposition, to appear as if he is defending Israel against multiple “conspiracies,” which strengthens his position with his supporters.

Manna points out that Israeli society and its institutions view the war in Gaza as if it is over, and they see the current operations as a reoccupation and re-engineering of the Strip, similar to what happened in the West Bank. From this standpoint, Israeli institutions seek to restore normal life as much as possible, while highlighting the image that the war did not disrupt the workflow within the state, especially after the agreement with Lebanon.