Israel Ancient legal Charges, Leadership, and Hamas-manipulated Protests

[Robert]

Benjamin Netanyahu Prime Minister of Israel faces trial on what are arguably now, three elderly-charges (investigation from 2016, charges in 2019), concerning allegations of "corruption". To date, he has not been convicted of any of these allegations. While corruption is wrong and in normal circumstances requires punishment, these particular charges have now been in the Israeli legal system too long, such that they should now be cancelled and thus accordingly the trials. In general such cases, when matters remain in such delay, this can threaten the quality of evidence and therefore the possibility of being able to have a fair trial. 

Would doing this bring the Israeli justice system into disrepute? 
No. Quite the opposite because the charges have been around now for a long time, such that proceeding any further with them is what would in my personal opinion, tend to cause such disrepute. 

Has P.M. Netanyahu caused this delay? 
No. The delays have been substantially caused by enemy action, during which time P.M. Netanyahu has shown exemplary leadership, resisting international pressure to desist from military action against Hamas. Pressure to desist upon Israel is by the Hamas-friendly United Nations, and by many world leaders who put their personal political ambitions first while paying lip-service to Israel's security and its right to defend and deter further attack from the Palestinian Arabs.

Here is an example of information from the United States:

'[...] The court will also look to prejudice in the case. In other words, was the defendant harmed by a delay caused by the prosecution? For example, did a witness die or move away before they could be summoned to the trial? Did the delay lead to a fading of memories such that witnesses could no longer be reliable? This could all be evidence of prejudice against the defendant caused by a delay. [...]'
 
Extract source:
"How Long Can A Criminal Case Be Delayed?", Graham Donath - I have no connection with the latter: 
https://www.gddlaw.com/2020/04/24/how-lo...e-delayed/

If the trials result in any conviction, the Israeli President should, in my personal opinion, consider a pardon, while the court should consider not imposing any punishment. In the U.K. this is known as an "absolute discharge".


Israeli citizens number nearly 10 million, compared with each Saturday claims that "hundreds of thousands" of people protest in Israel demanding the Israeli government enter into a ceasefire agreement with Hamas for the return of the Israeli hostages. Their anger incessantly implying perversely, that the Israeli government is responsible rather than Hamas. 

Many are also shown on Media News coverage with banners reading "Crime Minister", thus denying to the Israeli Prime Minister the right they would claim for themselves, of being innocent until proven guilty.

While the plight of the hostages is clear, it is also arguable that this nevertheless must take second place against preventing what happened to them, from happening to other Israeli families in the future. The protesters serve, as manipulated by Hamas and as the protesters must well know, the interests of Hamas; thus serving the enemy in time of war. The protesters should be ashamed since they put their personal tragedies above the safety of the country, above the safety of other Israeli families in the future, and above the morale of the IDF. 

The understandable plight of the families of the hostages has been hijacked by those who seek to protect Hamas and seek the destruction of Israel.

Could these demonstrators have the effect of holding-up any release of the hostages?:
Two of the possible objectives by the Palestinian Arabs in continuing to grip the hostages would likely be: 
To cause the families of the hostages to campaign in manner such that the effect thereof is to make less effective or even curtail, the Israeli military response. 
To cause dissension and discord within Israeli society. 
The Palestinian Arabs will no doubt be encouraged to continue to grip the hostages while such objectives continue. 

The demonstrations therefore only encourage the Palestinian Arabs to continue gripping the hostages.


Note:
Regarding any evidence already given in the above legal cases, please see my following post under the heading "Additional".

[RabbiO]

The statute of limitations in Israel on criminal matters is 10 years, with some limited exceptions. If the matters in question fall into that time frame then the Israeli system of justice pursuant to Israeli law has no problem in those matters going to trial and renders your opinion about the age of the cases meaningless.

[Robert]

The statute of limitations in Israel on criminal matters is 10 years, with some limited exceptions. If the matters in question fall into that time frame then the Israeli system of justice pursuant to Israeli law has no problem in those matters going to trial and renders your opinion about the age of the cases meaningless.

I want to thank contributor "RabbiO" for their response. 

I did not mention anything about "limitation" because, as contributor "RabbiO" says,  it likely does not apply to this matter. 

If he will care to re-read my post, he will find that I referred to cancellation of elderly charges in the interests of justice in order to avoid any unfair trials based on rather old evidence. 
I also referred to the possibility upon any conviction, of the President considering the exercise of their power of Pardon.
Finally, I referred to the possibility upon any conviction, of the courts considering the exercise of their power to not impose any punishment, similar to the British "absolute discharge" - 
All this renders contributor "RabbiO's" opinion about legal limitation in these cases, meaningless. 


Edit:
While I have legal training (retired) though not in Israeli law, others do not, and I did not take that into account above. 

'A statute of limitations, known in civil law systems as a prescriptive period, is a law passed by a legislative body to set the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated. [...]'

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_limitations

In the above, "event" refers to the date when an alleged offence occurred, while "initiated" refers typically to when in criminal matters a defendant is charged.
Thus a defendant may not be charged after any limitation period has expired.
In this case, I assume the defendant has been charged within any applicable limitation period, so I did not discuss limitation. 
(Also, had the rude-rabbi (reform) not been so typically abrupt, I would have drafted my response differently.) 


Additional:

It may well be that some of the evidence in this matter has already been given in court, but it is possible that evidence given too long after the events to which it relates may not constitute the best evidence, thus leading to an unfair trial. Further, if the defendant has yet to give evidence, their recollection so long after the events in question may suffer, leading to their lawyers having to take this into account when advising their client whether to give evidence, and therefore to an unfair trial. In this particular case the defendant has also had a lot on their mind, during their exemplary leadership in defending the country. 
Dragging the matter out as far is is has now been, may also amount to psychological harm upon the defendant, a man who has a heart condition requiring a pacemaker. 
Therefore such a long delay can possibly bring a judicial system into disrepute, and thus proceeding any further with such trials may not be in the public interest.

As I have already pointed out, the delay has been caused, not by the defendant, but substantially by enemy action.