“You don’t start a hearing before the elections unless you can finish it before the elections,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wrote on his Facebook page Jan. 6, referring to the possibility that Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit may decide to indict him on criminal charges, pending a hearing, prior to the April 9 elections. “Under no circumstances can the public hear the claims of one side and not the answers of the other!” Netanyahu wrote. Netanyahu’s argument has subsumed the political agenda, pushing aside his government’s status quo policy and creeping annexation of the occupied territories, which are turning Israel into an apartheid state. The right of the privileged Netanyahu to be presumed innocent until proven guilty dominates the public agenda at the expense of essential issues such as the rights of oppressed minorities in Israel and the occupied territories.

Indeed, Israel’s citizens should not go to the polls on April 9 armed only with one side’s claims, meaning an indictment of the candidate for prime minister. Who knows? Perhaps after hearing the arguments presented by Netanyahu’s high-priced lawyers, Mandelblit will decide to bin the police findings in the three criminal cases against Netanyahu, known as files 1000, 2000 and 4000. Netanyahu’s attorneys may come up with surprising arguments, which police investigators had not heard before from the prime minister himself when he found time to host them at his official residence (unlike run-of-the-mill suspects who are summoned for questioning to a police station or detention facility). However, according to Netanyahu, the truth will only emerge after the horses are long gone from the stable, meaning after April 9.

But the truth is that Netanyahu got to lay out his arguments not only before Mandelblit and the State Prosecutor’s team monitoring the investigations, but also before much larger forums. Contrary to Netanyahu’s indignant claim that voters must not be allowed to go to the polls with only one side of the story, the public is exposed incessantly to Netanyahu’s claims. For example, several hours after complaining on Facebook that his side of the story was being ignored, Netanyahu used subterfuge to take control of the country’s television and radio stations, online news sites and social media. On Jan. 7, under the guise of delivering a “dramatic announcement” on prime time, Netanyahu laid out his version of the corruption affairs for 15 full minutes.

For example, Netanyahu “revealed” to the public why law enforcement authorities were (allegedly) refusing his demand to confront his former aides who have turned state’s witness: because they (law enforcement authorities) support the division of Jerusalem between Israelis and Palestinians and Israel’s withdrawal to its 1967 borders. If he were to propose giving part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians and pulling back to the '67 borders, sacrificing Israel’s security, “this terrible hunt against me and my family” would have stopped, Netanyahu said. An experienced and seasoned politician like Netanyahu had obviously realized that even a restrained jurist such as Mandelblit would not remain indifferent to severe accusations of being a pawn in the hands of the radical left. Mandelblit will respond, Netanyahu will accuse, the media will attack and Netanyahu will depict himself as the victim in the affair.