On third day of PM's trial, wartime difficulties come to forefront - analysis

When rocket alerts sounded in the Tel Aviv District Court on Monday, Judge Rivka Friedman-Feldman rallied the chamber to push through the interruption and continue with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s third day of testimony for his corruption trial.

“Let’s continue, that’s why we’re here,” said Friedman-Feldman.

Yet the bunker courtroom two floors underground only emphasized the procedural difficulties of a trial during wartime. The trial’s clashes with the ongoing multifront war indicated that the coming weeks of testimony would be troubled by cancellations, delays, and breaks.

The increased security was the least of the problems. The courtroom moved from the Jerusalem District Court to the district court in Tel Aviv to accommodate the prime minister’s need for protected underground chambers. Three layers of security kept out protesters like a man who was shrieking into a megaphone about Netanyahu’s criminality and the need for an immediate hostage deal.

The weekly sessions had also been shortened to three days; Netanyahu’s request for two nonconsecutive days had been rejected.

If the prosecution and judges thought they would at least have these three days each week, Monday may have reset their expectations when the prime minister requested that the Tuesday session be canceled.

The reason was sensitive, likely having to do with the war – defense attorney Amit Hadad had to write a note and pass it to the judges. They removed all journalists and audience members to confer privately with the legal teams.

Ultimately, the judges approved of the cancellation of the Tuesday session for “exceptional reasons.”

Yet in wartime, rare incidents requiring the prime minister’s attention are the norm.

As with the previous days, secretive notes were passed to Netanyahu by his aides, ostensibly detailing matters of national security. Netanyahu had to leave on breaks in order to respond to their contents.

Balancing courtroom and responsibilities

The prosecution complained that the defendant was being passed notes while on the stand, causing Netanyahu’s wry composure to crumble.

“I want to give my testimony. But I’m the prime minister,” Netanyahu said forcefully, explaining that there were limits to how much he could balance the courtroom with his leadership responsibilities.

During a war, conflict is the chief priority, and the court will undoubtedly suffer this responsibility throughout the testimonial process.

Sirens may not disrupt the trial on their own, but the rockets and the Houthis who launched them may. Netanyahu, as prime minister, will no doubt have to lead the response to this problem in the near future. This will not be scheduled around the days that he is not appearing in court but around Israel’s security needs.

These exceptional incidents may only increase. Israel is currently in a lull in the war, but come the expiration of the Lebanon ceasefire and the return of President-elect Donald Trump to the White House on January 20, this may change.

The trial of a wartime prime minister may proceed without great issue, but the sense on Monday was that a storm was brewing. If the clash between the war and trial proves untenable, possible solutions could be the next distraction from the war.