“The reasonableness doctrine is not connected to the matter”? On what basis are you saying that? Did you read Dr. Russo’s article before responding?

I didn’t read it. I’ve had my fill of these arguments, and I’ve seen quite a few of them. If there’s a specific point, you’re welcome to raise it here.

He argues that the Attorney General, as the person heading the general prosecution system, has the highest authority to decide on withdrawing charges, amending an indictment, suspending proceedings (whose practical meaning is canceling the trial), and reaching an especially lenient arrangement that would allow, among other things, his continued tenure in office.

But here’s the thing: under the current legal situation, Netanyahu faces an insurmountable hurdle. If the government orders the dismissal of the Attorney General in order to appoint a new one (someone Netanyahu trusts), the presumption is that the Supreme Court will strike down the dismissal and the new appointment because they are extremely unreasonable and tainted by a clear conflict of interest. Hence Netanyahu’s acute need to abolish the reasonableness doctrine, as a means of appointing his own legal adviser and escaping the fear of justice.

To me, unfortunately, that actually does sound like a plausible scenario.

There’s nothing new here. I don’t see any chance of this scenario happening (today’s protests are a joke compared to what would happen in such a situation, and it would also take a very long time). Beyond that, it also doesn’t explain the whole reform. It’s quite clear that the entire thing, including the reasonableness doctrine, is an initiative of Rothman and Levin that is being imposed on Netanyahu. Nor do we see the reasonableness doctrine being placed at the head of the legislative program (that is, any special rush to legislate it). In short, a cheap conspiracy theory, as expected.

You started by saying that “the reasonableness doctrine is not connected to the matter” of canceling the trial. Then it turned out you hadn’t read the argument, and people explained to you how the reasonableness doctrine actually is connected. So then you moved on to argue that there’s no chance the trial will be canceled and that in general “the reasonableness doctrine is an initiative of Rothman and Levin being imposed on Netanyahu.” Don’t you think that’s ridiculous coming from someone who prides himself on critical reading and obsessively pointing out other people’s “logical fallacies”?

If you’d bother to read again what I wrote, you’d see that you’re talking nonsense. First, I wasn’t talking about a logical fallacy but about plausibility. Second, I explained why a priori it is implausible that the aim of this move is the reasonableness doctrine and Bibi. Third, I wrote that I know the argument and it isn’t new, and indeed when I read it, it was exactly what I expected it to be. It really isn’t new, and many wrote it before him. So it’s simply not true that “they explained to me how the reasonableness doctrine is connected.” They didn’t explain it, and it is no more connected to the matter than the law of gravitation or the Republican Party’s position in the U.S. regarding abortion.
I can raise the possibility that if the Republicans oppose abortion, they’ll support the conservative Bibi and his coalition and condition aid to Israel on his remaining prime minister, and then we’ll be forced to cancel his trial because that will save us economically. You can explain that taking over the committee for appointing judges would also save Bibi regardless of the reasonableness doctrine (because he would choose the panel that hears his appeal). All of these are hysterical nonsense. What distinguishes conspiracy theories is the absurd assumption that every possible scenario, however remote, will in fact happen or is likely to happen. Well, no.
In summary, I wrote that this absurd argument doesn’t hold water, and indeed it is absurd and doesn’t hold water. I knew that even before I read it, and nothing changed after I read it. I wrote my view without reading because I saw no point in reading familiar things, and it turned out I was right. If people repeat the same worn-out argument again, nothing about it changes, and there is no need to read the same things over and over again in order to form a position about them.
If you want to keep trolling, please try to find something more convincing and be more careful about reading comprehension and maintaining a reasonable level of argument. Good luck.