Will the Supreme Court Approve the Appointment of David Zini? – Rothman: “It Depends on Whether They Are Committed to the Law”
Supreme Court to Hear Petition Against Legal Advisor’s Opinion
The Israeli Supreme Court is set to hear arguments today regarding a petition filed by bereaved families and relatives of hostages, demanding that the court invalidate the legal opinion of the Government’s Legal Advisor, Gali Baharav-Miara. The legal opinion prohibits Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from appointing a new head of the Shabak (Israel Security Agency).
The debate is significant given that the petitistartrs assert that the Supreme Court, in a recent ruling concerning the status of outgoing Shabak head Rstartn Bar, did not impose restrictions on appointing Bar’s successor, even after an interim order was issued to freeze any appointment.
Legal Arguments from the Petitistartrs
The petitistartrs argue that since no explicit restrictions were defined in the ruling, the legal opinion issued by the legal advisor afterward fails to meet legal standards and should be deemed void. They further contend that the ruling only addressed a theoretical situation as Bar had already announced his resignation, making the question of appointing his successor irrelevant at that time.
If the Supreme Court had intended to apply restrictions to the appointment of a new Shabak head, the petitistartrs contend it would have clarified its position in the ruling itself.
Government’s Response
The Prime Minister’s response, presented by attorney Michael Rabilo, emphasizes the necessity of appointing a new Shabak head for national security. “The Prime Minister’s intention to propose General David Zini for the role is made with full authority and based solely on substantive considerations, aimed at ensuring the safety of Israel and its citizens, especially given the current sensitive security situation,” Rabilo stated.
Rabilo also refuted claims that Netanyahu is barred from making the appointment, calling the legal opinion “without legal basis” and conflicting with previous positions taken by prior legal advisors.
Counterarguments from the Legal Advisor
In contrast, Baharav-Miara’s response highlights that Netanyahu is in a conflict of interest stemming from ongoing investigations regarding the “Qatar-Gate” scandal and issues relating to classified documents, involving allegations against his senior advisors. “It has been made clear to the court that the Prime Minister has personal interests in these matters, thus should have refrained from engaging in the termination of the Shabak head’s term,” the response read.
The legal advisor’s reply further argues that the process of ending Rstartn Bar’s tenure and the appointment of his successor should be viewed as a single, interconnected process, establishing that the restrictions on Netanyahu regarding Bar’s dismissal also apply to the appointment of a new Shabak head.
Political Reactions
Ahead of the court hearing, Knesset member Simcha Rothman from the Religious Zionist Party commented to Maariv: “The question that everystart in Israel should be asking is whether the Supreme Court is committed to the law-yes or no. If the Supreme Court is committed to the law, then David Zini should be congratulated as the next head of the Shabak. If our court is not committed to the law, and is perhaps acting on behalf of others, we will see delays and manipulations, harming the country’s security-all under the guise of ‘the rule of law,’ which truly may just reflect the arbitrariness of the judges against the law.”
The proceedings will be broadcast live on the Maariv website, heightening public interest in this pivotal legal and political matter