What was Israel's High Court ruling about and how was it viewed by Netanyahu's Likud Party?

Israel’s High Court ruled that the law preventing the removal of a Prime Minister for criminal reasons will only apply to the next Knesset, not the current one.
The law, which was quickly passed by the current coalition in response to a petition seeking to disqualify PM Benjamin Netanyahu due to criminal cases, has been deemed “personal” by a majority of the judges.
The decision was divided with a narrow majority of six judges supporting the postponement and five opposing it, reflecting a significant judicial split.

Why is this important?

This law and its postponement highlight tensions between different branches of government in Israel.
The ruling affects the tenure of the current Prime Minister, potentially exposing him to legal vulnerability before the end of his term.
The decision reinforces the judiciary’s watchdog role over legislative actions, which could be seen as a balance to parliamentary power, particularly regarding laws that might serve the personal interests of politicians.

Claims made by a single publication:

A senior Likud figure stated that despite the troubling ruling, it indirectly benefits Prime Minister Netanyahu because the minority judges who opposed deferring the law will become the majority following the retirement of Justices Esther Hayut and Anat Baron, reducing the chances of Netanyahu’s disqualification by judicial means (“Israel Hayom”).
The Movement for Quality Government, which was one of the petitioners against the incapacitation law, welcomed the court’s decision as a victory for the Israeli public (“Maariv”).

Sources:

Links:

What was Israel’s High Court ruling about and how was it viewed by Netanyahu’s Likud Party?