Sequels never quite live up to the original product, but they can often generate just as much excitement. After a proposal to make the prime minister immune from prosecution while in office was more bust than blockbuster, as nearly everyone and their mother called foul on the idea, papers preview the coming of “Bibi Bill 2,” as Yedioth Ahronoth dubs it, a direct to video version of the original idea, which will only keep the police from being able to recommend whether to indict or not at the end of an investigation.

Excitement over the bill is palpable in Netanyahu-backing Israel Hayom, with the front page blaring that “There is no legal cause to prevent the bill against police recommendations,” quoting what it calls political and judicial sourcing. The paper is bald-faced in noting that the bill will mean the police can’t recommend to indict Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ( which means they admit it’s an actual possibility and not “nothing,” as the prime minister has claimed), playing it as a quid-pro-quo for sinking the original Bibi bill.

“In the coalition, it is estimated that the bill will pass committee and then the full Knesset. The significance of the law is that after the police transfer the investigatory material to the prosecutor and from there to the attorney general, the police will only give a summary of the investigation but won’t be able to recommend charges against Netanyahu — a determination which is expected to be accompanied by public and media pressure that may play into the decision on filing an indictment even if there’s no reason for it according to the evidence,” the paper reports, putting very little faith in the police.

Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign Up

As gung-ho as Israel Hayom is about the new bid, Yedioth is just as skeptical, and it’s not just the font of the “Bibi Law 2” on its front page making it look more like a slasher pic than legislative sausage making. The paper reports that while its true that the attorney general will back the law — even though his office is not exactly excited about it — it’s not clear if the coalition will as well.

“Coalition sources made clear yesterday that if the law includes the Netanyahu investigation, and the estimation in the coalition is that it indeed will — Jewish Home and Kulanu will oppose it,” the paper reports.

Columnist Sima Kadmon explains why Netanyahu and his buddies are so keen to get the police to keep their mouths shut with their recommendations.

“One of Netanyahu’s biggest fears is that the police will recommend he be indicted and publicize the suspicions against him. This will be the first time the public will be informed officially about the serious allegations that he is reportedly suspected of,” she writes. “No more ‘fake news,’ ‘witch hunt whose only purpose is to bring down the prime minister,’ but evidence, testimony, allegations that will compel the police to recommend charges. With the whole delegitimization campaign Netanyahu has waged against the police, he’ll have a hard time dealing with the things revealed in a recommendation to the prosecution.”

On Haaretz’s op-ed page Dan Margalit, perhaps not up to date on the demise of Bibi bill 1, calls the legislation a sign of the government’s moral bankruptcy, as people fail to step up to tell the leaders that their bid to immunize the prime minister from prosecution is wrong-headed (though they clearly did, hence it being torpedoed).

“I would have expected Gilad Erdan, Benny Begin, Yehudah Glick, Sharren Haskel, Tzipi Hotovely and Yuval Steinitz to remind Netanyahu of the days in which he sat in a Tel Aviv restaurant, saying that the level of investigations against Prime Minister Ehud Olmert require that he resign immediately,” he writes, rattling off names of Likud lawmakers. “Why have they fallen silent? Why don’t they tell him that they won’t destroy an entire orderly legal system in order to exempt one person, important as he may be, from taking responsibility for his actions?”

The paper’s lead story deals with different legislation working its way through the system, with a flurry of bills competing to override a High Court ruling that corner stores can stay open on Shabbat.

The paper goes into the bills and their various sponsors and the differences between them in mind-numbing detail, including one bill which apparently tries to undo another bill by presenting a more moderate version.

“It is too early to tell how the ministers will grapple with the flood of bills on the issue. They speak of four scenarios — killing both bills, postponing debate, approving a preliminary reading and conditioning their advancement on establishing a team to formulate a coalition-based agreement regarding them,” the paper reports.

Who can open what businesses where is also at the heart of arguably the most important news item of the day, though it’s somewhat buried by the Knesset goings-on — Yedioth’s publication of the partial UN blacklist of companies operating in West Bank settlements. The roster contains both local chains, like the Rami Levi supermarket and Amisragas gas distributor, and large multinationals, like Motorola and ReMax.

According to the paper, a total of 130 Israeli companies and 60 multinationals have gotten letters from the UN’s High Commissioner on Human Rights telling them to cut ties to the settlements or else.

But the paper indicates that some companies aren’t cool with being threatened.

“Though most firms are still deciding how to respond, some have already threatened to return fire. Claiming that the list is liable to hurt their businesses and besmirch their brands, they are studying the possibility of suing the UN human rights commissioner who called for the list to be drawn up,” the report reads. “The companies claim that political forces stand behind the decision to draw up the roster, and as an example, point to the fact that the commissioner has not asked for similar lists in the Korean peninsula or Western Sahara.”