Make impeachment possible

However, reality is stranger than fiction, and authority overcomes any shame. If President Katsav displayed just a trace of stateliness, it has been lost forever in recent days. Had he possessed even a little integrity, he would have left his post at once. This has nothing to do with whether he's guilty or innocent. It's publicly improper that a president facing such dark cloud of suspicion continue in his post.

It's hard to believe that the hearing – a privilege reserved for public figures – would change the bad news. The myriad of charges and their severity cannot lead to a complete annulment of the indictment, regardless of the legal tricks of attorneys Zion Amir and David Libai, or the rhetorical and marketing tricks of PR whiz Motti Morel.

The president is living on borrowed time. Yet in the intermediate period between the attorney general's decision regarding the submission of an indictment subject to a hearing and the decision following the hearing, the president is forcing upon us his disgraceful presence on the presidential chair. He remains public citizen number one, and his portrait still hangs at schools. He represents the State of Israel's (ugly) face in the eyes of the world's nations. What a shame.

President Katsav is taking advantage of the existing law knowing that the likelihood of coming up with a 90-MK majority that would vote for his impeachment – a requirement like no other under Israeli law – is slim.

Thus, and not in good faith, the president is forcing his presidency upon us. Many Knesset members are interested in impeaching him, but the Knesset will have to make do for the time being with the meager alternative of temporary absence. By doing so, it gave in to Katsav's dictates. The requirement for such large majority constitutes the last resort he's clinging to. Yet this isn't predestination – the Knesset can and should amend the law.

Misguided policy

There isn’t much logic behind the (practically impossible) requirement for a 90-MK majority for the purpose of impeachment. An elected government in Israel can be toppled by a 61-MK majority.

Is it thinkable that in order to impeach the president – a representative puppet devoid of substantive authorities – a larger majority is required than that needed to overturn the results of democratic elections in Israel? Is it logical that an elected government will be toppled by a smaller majority than that needed to topple a president? Not at all.

The Basic Law: The President isn't entrenched; a simple majority of two Knesset members versus one is enough to amend it. This has been done many times: This law has been amended seven times already, four of them in the past decade alone. This is how, for example, the "temporary absence" clause was created, as a result of late President Ezer Weizman's investigation.

Although I do not support frequent changes to laws in general, and to Basic Laws in particular, and even though I do not back the amendment of laws so that they are custom-tailored for specific people or circumstances, I believe there is no other way but to change the majority required for impeachment to 61 Knesset members. Not only do the unfortunate circumstances call for it, the requirement for an especially high majority was a misguided policy to begin with. It should be changed in any case.

We can assume that if the Knesset changes the Basic Law, President Katsav will be quick to resign before he's impeached. Even if not, it would be appropriate to impeach him, and the sooner the better. We must change the existing law in order to make the impeachment option viable, as in its current form it's a dead letter.

The writer is an attorney specializing in constitutional law