Aryeh Deri apparently does not intend to leave politics even though he was sentenced to a suspended sentence and convicted of crimes for the second time in his life. The legal system may rule in accordance with its accepted interpretation that a conditional sentence is like a sentence which is prevented by the basic law, the government, appointment to a ministerial position. Aryeh Deri and Netanyahu who now intend to change the basic law, the government, to allow Deri to circumvent the ban, if the court prevents Deri from holding office despite the amendment, will they be directed to also change the Basic Law: The Judiciary to prevent the court from interfering with the appointment? If this happens, the political crisis that has become a constitutional crisis may become a civil crisis. This is probably the reason why Netanyahu wrote to the president requesting the extension of the mandate (see his attached letter), because the agreements include reference to "many and complex fundamental issues". Indeed, even from the point of view of the Supreme Court, these issues are complex, and are not purely legal, because the discussion of Aryeh Deri's case opens up the deep, unresolved motif in Israeli society, which is also expressed in the Supreme Court: the exclusion of Eastern culture from Israel's legal and political centers of power for decades ( And we all still remember the proposal to include Judge Mazuz in the Supreme Court within a quota of Eastern judges); It is therefore difficult to assume that such a hearing in the Supreme Court will only be in the light of the law without any mitigating interpretation, and Deri therefore has a chance to overcome this crisis as well, and be appointed minister.

Binyamin Netanyahu submitted to the president at the end of the week a request to extend the deadline for the formation of his government, by two more weeks. Netanyahu stated in his letter to the President that Shas and JT demand coalition agreements "(and) these agreements include reference to many and complex issues of principle"

The most complex issue of all, and the one that may even thwart the possibility of the formation of a Netanyahu government, is the Aryeh Deri issue, which will be at the center of the political and legal arena this week. Why do we say that this issue could thwart a government? Because Deri's refusal to form a government before a detailed coalition agreement is signed with his party, makes it clear that Deri conditions the formation of the government by signing a detailed agreement, or in other words if there is no detailed agreement there is no government. On the other hand, it is possible that these are only opening positions of Aryeh Deri; Depends on what the court says.

What is in the detailed coalition agreement that Deri needs so much? The very possibility that he could be appointed a minister, and the need to change the basic law, the government, so that it differentiates between a prison sentence and a suspended sentence and will allow him to serve as a minister in the Netanyahu government. And this is because the interpretation accepted by the courts is that in the context of the Basic Law of the Government, a suspended prison sentence is the same as an actual prison sentence.

Does Deri have a chance to become a minister, in the legal reality that will exist when the basic government law is changed? Our answer is that from a purely legal point of view, the chances are slim, because the legal system in a reformed reality will reject the amendment, not because a fundamental law is changed, but because the change is personal ad hoc, or at least it will clarify that the personal amendment eliminates the justification for changing the law, and therefore the accepted interpretation of the law according to a person who has been sentenced to a suspended sentence cannot be a minister in the Israeli government – strong and existing. President Hayut probably alluded to this in her words, which looked ahead, according to which a storm is approaching, but the judiciary will be able to handle it. It should be noted that the president did not say that the system would take a categorical legal line, but said "we will be able to handle it"

And with all that, Deri and Netanyahu will have another way out of the whole legal mess if they do prevent Deri from becoming a minister, and that is to change the Basic Law of Justice, in such a way that the law will not allow any interference by the court in appointments to the government. But such a change would be in terms of a completely new social political constitutional opera, since a personal change of two basic laws to appoint a person convicted by law to a minister, could move the decision-making arena from the courts to the street.

Interpretation:

The political crisis that led to the current constitutional crisis is only the end of the Israeli social crisis between East and West that has lasted for generations and that over the years has even become a social disease that endangers Israel; The crisis stems from the Ashkenazi racial attack against the East from the dawn of revival, an attack which led to the destruction of values ​​in the East communities; One of the aspects of the destruction of Eastern values ​​is a structured electoral bias (detached from a political view) towards the Israeli political revisionism that expressed opposition to the political line that was on the other side, which is the political barricade that carried out the racial attack against the East. Revisionism was expressed in the Likud movement and its previous incarnations, and when the Israeli right was not satisfied with Likud's views but wanted more extremism to the right, the Mizrahi voters radicalized and aligned themselves with the change.

This political bias allows Netanyahu and Deri to be in power for a large part of the last three decades. In this context, it is only symbolic that at the heart of the current constitutional crisis is the party that, upon its founding in 1984, expressed the desire of the Mizrachi (in this case the ultra-orthodox) to build a political force that would no longer allow its members and supporters to be discriminated against, and it is succeeding in doing so beyond expectations (and even more so). The head of this party, Aryeh Deri, built its power under the auspices of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and under the auspices of the traditional Eastern religious heritage, and on top of it he soared to the top of the Israeli political arena. But at the height of his power, he was convicted in 1999 of taking bribes and sentenced to prison, and a few months ago he was convicted a second time of tax offenses and sentenced to a suspended prison term. In this sense, it is possible that the destruction of Eastern values ​​is also manifested in his personal life, and perhaps as a leader and example, Deri even led to the deepening of the destruction of Eastern values. In our view, this is an excellent research question. For it may become clear in the process that Deri raised the East to the top of Israeli politics out of the cultural depression it was in, but also later dropped it into a moral abyss that has now become a constitutional question. However, it is not possible to examine the political, cultural, and value behavior of the ultra-Orthodox (as well as the traditional and secular) eastern public, without mentioning the motive for this behavior, which is the exclusion of the eastern public from the Ashkenazi ruling culture, from the dawn of the revival, until today. In this sense, the court sits within its people, and it did not reject the aggressive ruling culture after the establishment of the state, since its composition never expressed the Israeli society in all its cultures, and did not express in its composition in the Supreme Court and the other courts the decisive weight of the Mizrahi public, and thereby its culture, its perceptions , his longings, and the enormous weight of the heritage of the East which is mainly religious, and which following the Ashkenazi racial attack came almost to the point of destruction. Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and Aryeh Deri tried to stop this destruction, and in the traditional Eastern Jewish religious arena they even succeeded. Therefore, the discussion of Aryeh Deri's case in the current crisis (or even in the current crisis should be said) will probably not be purely legal but will seep into it alongside the legal values ​​as well as social cultural values ​​(even if it is presented to the public but in legal terms). And in such a discussion, the chance that a personal change of the basic law of the government will be accepted by the Supreme Court is a real chance (as well as criticism of it, but criticism which does not include the prevention of the move). Will this be a mistake on the part of the judiciary? Our answer is that Israeli culture deserves another chance to correct itself, before a categorical legal action is accepted that could bring it to the brink of an abyss.