Netanyahu and Trump: Leaders on Trial

Two acquaintances, perhaps even friends (although I’d bet they aren’t really friends), are facing trial this week. Two acquaintances on two sides of the ocean. And to be precise: one literally sat on the court bench this morning, photographed for everyone to see; the other is probably staying at home to watch the proceedings on TV, or maybe playing golf to communicate his indifference.

Either way, they are both accused. Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu and the United States’ Donald Trump. One is charged with fraud and bribery. The other with incitement and attempted sabotage of the democratic process. One is threatened with imprisonment. The other is threatened, at worst, with exclusion from public life. One is still in power. The other was forced to leave. One is on trial before professional judges. The other is on trial before his fellow politicians in the U.S. Senate, following an impeachment vote in the House of Representatives.

In fact, looking at the details, there is not much similarity between these two events. Still, the coincidence feels like more than a coincidence. It echoes the way in which legal and political instruments mix. It echoes the question of whether social and political challenges can be overcome using legal means. It echoes the disturbing fact that despite a growing ability of states to demand transparency from their leaders, scrutinize their actions and place them before a judge or a tribunal, it is far from certain that the quality of government has improved. Some would argue that, in fact, the opposite has happened. We have more legal processes and less government efficiency.

And there is another interesting resemblance between these two very different cases: From the moment the social, the political and the legal mixed, the voters have not been able to see a clear picture. For them, too, everything is mixed. Should Netanyahu stand trial? Netanyahu’s supporters will say no; his opponents will say yes. Is Trump guilty of incitement? His opponents will say yes; his supporters will say no. In other words, it is very difficult to separate a factual examination of the issue from the preconceived outlook on the topic in question.

Israel’s Democracy Institute released its monthly survey this week to demonstrate this phenomenon. The topic was Netanyahu’s management of the COVID-19 crisis. Only 8% of Blue-and-White Party voters believe that Netanyahu’s performance in handling the coronavirus is good. On the other side of the political spectrum, most Likud and Shas Party voters believe that the prime minister is doing a fine job handling the pandemic.

The virus is the same virus; the state is the same state; the leader is the same leader — but preconceived support or opposition rule.

The leader is the same leader — but preconceived support or opposition rule.

This bias is also the case with Trump. A small majority of Americans support his conviction. But this majority has a distinct political color. Almost every Democrat supports the conviction; almost every Republican opposes it. It is not Trump’s actions at a specific event that are being judged by the public but his whole personality and actions. Whoever supported him along the way will not abandon him, even in the aftermath of a riot on Capitol Hill. Whoever opposed him along the way will have no trouble convincing themselves that he is guilty.

What is the political significance of these events? In the American arena, it is negligible. Trump will probably not be a Republican candidate again. And in 2024, the main question of the election will be about President Biden. Is he a good president; does he deserve another term (and if not him, then Kamala Harris)? Are you better off under Biden than you were four years ago?

In Israel, things are a little complicated, as Netanyahu is still running to be the prime minister, and Election Day is just a few weeks away (March 23). Still, we can assume that even in the Israeli arena, the Netanyahu trial, which has just begun in earnest, will have no dramatic effect on voters.

The voters knew in the previous round of elections that Netanyahu was about to face trial. Anyone who has stayed with him thus far is probably not bothered by the trial (or is bothered — but from the opposite direction). Those who never voted for him or decided to abandon him will feel vindicated, but electorally, they no longer matter much. According to the IDI poll, about 20% of the voters of Netanyahu’s main challenger on the right, Gideon Saar, are former Likud voters. Thirteen percent of Likud voters are still undecided. So they, too, have the potential to switch to Saar or to Yamina’s Naftali Bennett.

What will convince these undecided voters to abandon Likud? Can it be the trial? Before we answer this, it’s important to mention what renowned pollster Professor Camil Fuchs told me yesterday: Netanyahu is still the candidate with the highest chances of winning the election and forming the next coalition. And as for the undecided voters, looking at the data we have leads me to the conclusion that the trial isn’t going to be the make or break issue. If Netanyahu is going to lose, it will be because of his strong connection with the ultra-Orthodox parties, because of the intolerably juvenile conduct of his cabinet amid the COVID-19 crisis and mostly because of the general feeling among many Israelis that Netanyahu’s presence has become more a burden than a gain to Israel’s society and government.