Imagine the following: The head of a corporate legal department tells the CEO that his plan to take over a plot of privately owned land for use by the company could land him in hot water with the authorities. What would the CEO do if his erudite legal adviser were to declare that he would not be able to defend the firm against legal challenges to such a takeover? How many CEOs would dare ignore the warnings of their personally appointed legal counsel, at the same time shutting out thunderous criticism of the dubious move from all over the world? How many boards of directors would have authorized the CEO’s plan, allowing him to appoint outside counsel to defend the company against lawsuits by landowners seeking damages?

The scenario is analogous to the Regularization Bill adopted Feb. 7 by Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, allowing the State of Israel to take over private Palestinian lands in the West Bank. This law enables Israel to regularize the legal status of illegal Jewish settlements. Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit — who also serves as the government’s legal adviser — has already made it abundantly clear to all concerned that in his view the bill is unconstitutional and contravenes international law. In capitals around the globe, Israel’s closest friends have for months protested against plans to push through the legislation. In a rare move, Mandelblit informed the court that he was recusing himself and would not be defending the state against petitions filed to annul the bill. The State of Israel is his client. His defeat is the state’s defeat. In another rare move, other relevant state-level legal advisers — of the Knesset and the Defense Ministry, as well as the military advocate general — also expressed opposition to the new law.

Despite the stance of the legal adviser, refusing to defend the bill, the board of directors headed by Benjamin Netanyahu — otherwise known as the government — did not dismiss Mandelblit. The attorney (Mandelblit) it has on its payroll was not sent home, even though his stance forced the government to look for outside counsel. And after Mandelblit’s refusal, the ministers didn’t have a thing to say about the decision by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked to hand the case over to attorney Harel Arnon, despite a recent police recommendation to indict him on criminal charges. Shaked announced that there was no legal reason not to send Arnon to defend the state in the Supreme Court, praising him as “the most fitting person” for the task.

On reading the detailed appeal submitted March 5 to the court by 23 heads of Palestinian village councils, five Palestinian landowners and a dozen nongovernmental organizations led by Yesh Din, Peace Now and the Association of Civil Rights in Israel, one can understand why Mandelblit refused to defend the Regularization Law. It will be interesting to see how Arnon deals with the petitioners’ claims, after Justice Neil Hendel instructed the government, the attorney general, the military advocate general, the commander of Israeli forces in the West Bank, the head of the Civil Administration in the West Bank and its custodian of government and abandoned property to respond within 30 days to the petitioners’ request for a temporary injunction against the law and its implementation.