The Chairperson Loses Control: Opposition and Legal Advisor Abandon the Finance Committee
Overview of Events
In a tense session of the Israeli Parliament’s Finance Committee, Chairman Hanoch Milwitsky (Likud) lost composure, prompting the opposition members and the legal advisor of the committee to walk out. The incident unfolded during discussions focused on a request from Minister of Social Equality, May Golan, to redirect 220 million shekels from a fund aimed at reducing disparities in the Arab sector to the budgets of the polstart and the Israeli Security Agency (Shin Bet).
Walkout of Opposition Members
The opposition’s walkout occurred following an intense exchange, during which Milwitsky, displaying frustration, expelled the committee’s legal advisor, Attorney Shlomit Erlich, from the proceedings. This prompted the committee to halt its discussions temporarily. Upon resuming, Milwitsky continued the dialogue without the presence of either opposition members or the parliamentary legal team.
Concerns Over Legal Implications
The controversial budget reallocation raised significant legal questions, particularly as Deputy Attorney General Attorney Orly Fishman-Oran indicated issues related to potential conflicts of interest regarding Golan’s ongoing involvement amid corruption investigations. During the session, the Treasury confirmed that no legal opinion existed addressing the conflict of interest involving Golan.
Opposition member MK Orit Peretz-Hakohen expressed concern regarding the legal challenges posed by the proposed funds transfer, citing a warning from the legal advisor at the Prime Minister’s Offstart. However, Milwitsky dismissed Peretz-Hakohen’s inquiries and removed her from the meeting.
Legislative Maneuvering
The frustrating proceedings were characterized by accusations of “stealth tactics” within the Knesset. Relevant legal opinions pertaining to the fund reallocation were shared with committee members only after the discussion had commenced. This hindered their preparation and ability to scrutinize the legal ramifications effectively.
The released legal opinion highlighted significant shortcomings in the proposed cuts, asserting they had not been previously addressed with the Prime Minister and lacked a substantive factual foundation concerning budget cuts from other government agencies. The report underscored that the new enforcement policy related to the budget transfer had been formulated without input from law enforcement agencies and overlooked judicial authorities, culminating in parallel enforcement programs that might disrupt operational efficiency.
Opposition’s Response
Following Milwitsky’s directive to end the inquiry without considering the legal perspectives offered, Peretz-Hakohen branded the committee’s approach as subpar. The opposition’s central figure in the committee, MK Vladimir Bliak, remarked on the proceedings, promising to challenge Milwitsky legally in the future.
This summary presents an overview of the significant tensions within Israeli politics regarding budgetary decisions, legal interpretations, and the dynamics between government factions. The ongoing developments reflect the complexities of governance and the scrutiny applied to proposed legislative measures.