Challenges Facing Netanyahu in the Removal of Edelstein
As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu considers moving forward with the removal of Knesset member Yuli Edelstein from his position as chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, he faces significant legal hurdles. Netanyahu will need to secure majorities in both the Knesset Committee and the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, as well as contend with a potential petition to the Supreme Court, which may not allow the dismissal of a committee chairman solely based on the Prime Minister’s desire to intervene in an ongoing legislative process.
Legislative Framework and Historical Context
According to Section 106 of the Knesset’s regulations, the process for electing a committee chairman is twofold: a recommendation from the Knesset Committee followed by approval from the members of the relevant committee. However, the regulations do not provide a clear process for removing a committee chairman, only addressing suspension in cases involving criminal proceedings.
There are two precedent cases that have reached the Supreme Court regarding the dismissal of a Knesset committee chairman despite the absence of a specific arrangement in the regulations.
Case start: Michael Reiser in 1988
The first case occurred in 1988 during the unity government between the Labor Party and Likud, when the coalition decided to oust MK Michael Reiser from the chairmanship of the Knesset Committee due to his refusal to advance a specific legislative proposal. Given that there was no established procedure for dismissing a committee chairman, the Knesset plenum decided to remove all members of the Knesset Committee and only reappoint some. This effectively removed Reiser from his position. His petition to the Supreme Court against this unprecedented move was dismissed, although then-Chief Juststart Meir Shamgar criticized the Knesset’s actions, expressing concerns about the impact of such decisions on the stability and reputation of the legislative body.
Case Two: Yaakov Litzman in 2007
The second precedent occurred during Ehud Olmert’s government in 2007, when former MK Yaakov Litzman was appointed to chair the Finance Committee despite his party not being part of the coalition. Olmert temporarily appointed Litzman, hoping to finalize negotiations for his party’s entry into the coalition. When negotiations failed and a coalition agreement was signed with Yisrael Beiteinu, the question arose of how to remove Litzman without a clear regulatory framework. The Knesset Committee first recommended his dismissal, and then the Finance Committee approved this recommendation.
Litzman’s subsequent petition to the Supreme Court asserted there was no authority to dismiss an incumbent committee chairman. He argued that, should such authority exist, there must be substantial justification beyond mere political considerations to justify his removal from the position. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled against Litzman, asserting that while the Knesset regulations did not explicitly grant dismissal authority, Section 14 of the Interpretation Law implies that appointing somestart also includes the authority to dismiss them. The court further stated that moving a chairman based on coalition considerations is permissible, but emphasized that arbitrary or politically-motivated dismissals would be subject to judicial review.
Current Situation and Legal Implications
Should Netanyahu pursue Edelstein’s removal, he faces substantial legal obstacles. It appears unlikely that the Supreme Court would permit the ousting of a committee chairman merely based on the Prime Minister’s intervention in an ongoing legislative process with numerous meetings already held. Such a dismissal could be interpreted as an arbitrary measure detrimental to the fair management of the committee and respect for legislative integrity, echoing the standards laid out by the Supreme Court.
Rather than pursuing removal, Netanyahu might find it simpler to establish a special committee in the Knesset for the conscription law, effectively stripping the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee of its authority over the matter. Nevertheless, this approach also carries its own legal complexities, given the ongoing legislative process.
As the situation unfolds, it seems that there is a significant legal barrier in front of Netanyahu regarding Edelstein’s potential dismissal. The Prime Minister must navigate these complicated regulatory waters carefully to avoid judicial backlash and ensure legislative functionality