It is worth considering theConducted by Manny Mazuz, the new (and perhaps retired) chairman of the Advisory Committee for Appointments to Senior Positions. Mazuzwho has a record as a legal advisor to the government and a former Supreme Court judge, disrespects and insults the honor of the Supreme Court, the same court of which he himself was until recently one of its members.
● The consultation with Manny Mazuz and the double recommendation: behind the scenes of the drama at the High Court
It will be recalled that the judges of the High Court this week discussed the petition of the “Lavi” organization, which was submitted against the appointment of Mazuz to the position of chairman of the committee. On behalf of his fellow panel members, Judge Noam Solberg proposed that an appointment be canceled, with the exception of an ad-hoc appointment for the purpose of examining the appointment of the Chief of Staff. The representative of the ombudsman Gali Beharev Miara announced that she does not accept the proposal and that Mazuz also opposes it.
I can understand, even if I don’t agree, the opposition of the Yamash and retired judge Mazuz. The ad hoc appointment of a gatekeeper may set a precedent for the future to appoint gatekeepers as temporary appointments that depend on the mercy of the government. But Mazuz’s conduct is puzzling to me. He chose not to be represented by the attorney’s office or another party in the process, did not respond to the petition, and with the exception of the announcement he made during the hearing through the ombudsman that he opposes the proposal, he chose not to present his arguments and his position before the High Court.
When the judges of the High Court, after hearing the arguments of the parties, recommend a certain outline to the state, the first to jump up and say “Amen” is Mazuz, who until recently sat beside them as a full-fledged judge and, like them, made recommendations to the parties. Shouldn’t Mazuz set a personal example and accept the ” The recommendation” instead of asking that the judge judge the mountain?
Mezuz remains his own
Over a year ago, the judges of the High Court of Justice discussed allegations of exceeding the authority of then Commissioner David Rosen. The judges were inclined to the petitioner’s claims. They recommended Commissioner Rosen to agree to an outline that curtails his powers. Rosen’s attorney, Adv. Yossi Benkel, called the client and presented him with the judges’ proposal . Rosen answered him immediately: “For me, the court’s recommendation is like an order.” Is it mandatory to agree to the judges’ recommendation? No, but more could be expected from Mezoz.
But up until now, Mazuz’s behavior was still somehow reasonable. Due to the opposition of the prosecutor and Mezuz, the High Court of Justice issued a conditional order: “Why don’t they order the cancellation of the appointment of Lakhen as chairman of the committee for a full term of office, and after that determine that his appointment to this position will become an ad hoc appointment or a temporary appointment as an acting place, for the purpose of examining the appointment of a candidate for the position of Chief of Staff only”.
The conditional order that was issued did not concern the continuation of Mazuz’s tenure as chairman of the committee for the purpose of reviewing the appointment of the candidate Major General Herzi Halevi for the position of Chief of Staff. This, with the understanding that the position of the professionals in the Ministry of Defense is that there is an urgent security need for the appointment of a Chief of Staff. However, the Ministry of Justice and Defense say that convening the committee is not on the agenda at all, because Mazuz has made it clear that he will not agree to serve as chairman of the committee in an ad hoc appointment or as a fill-in, as suggested by the judges. Until there is a decision on this matter, the committee does not function.
Mazoz further clarified that in his opinion the judges’ proposal is completely contrary to the rationale underlying the decision to establish the advisory committee and contrary to the general trend of disconnecting the gatekeeper’s office from the government. As far as Mazuz is concerned, and as he made clear to the legal adviser of the Prime Minister’s Office, if a ruling is given that his appointment will only be as a filling in place or ad hoc for the appointment of a Chief of Staff, he will resign because he believes this is a wrong move.
Is it Mazuz’s right not to agree to the judges’ proposal? certainly. Does he have the right to resign from his position if his legal position is not accepted by the High Court? Absolutely. In my opinion the answer to that is “no”, with three exclamation points.
I would expect him to first discuss the Chief of Staff’s case – and only then or at the same time to continue his fight. In any case, I would expect him to respect the rulings of the High Court of Justice, even if they are wrong in his eyes. It is impossible to describe the contempt in the conduct of a retired Supreme Court judge who prefers to resign from his position because he does not like the normative framework outlined for him by the High Court that heard his case.
Is this how it is appropriate for the chairman of a committee whose task is to examine the moral purity of senior appointments to conduct himself? This is how it is appropriate for someone who served as a legal advisor to the government and a Supreme Court judge to conduct himself?
Mazuz’s opposition is seemingly principled. He is not ready to depend on the mercy of the government. In his opinion, the continuation of the term of gatekeeper should not depend on the government, whose appointments he is supposed to check. So here, I have a solution – announce in advance that your initiative will only review the appointment of the Chief of Staff, and then withdraw from your initiative. That way the chairman of the advisory committee will not be at the mercy of any government, so that a precedent will not be set for appointing the chairman of an advisory committee for eight years During a transitional government. But Mazuz is not ready. It’s all or nothing. That’s why we’ll fall, that’s why we’ll rise. Now it’s just you in the middle of life.
Urgent appointment. is that so?
There is another point that needs to be addressed regarding the appointment of the Chief of Staff. Defense Minister Gantz asked the Ombudsman to appoint a Chief of Staff in a transitional government for urgent security reasons, even though the term of the current Chief of Staff will end about two months after the elections. The ombudsman demanded an orderly schedule for the appointment. Gantz was significantly late than the time he committed to. Now, Mazuz and Miara are stalling the committee’s work until an unknown time, even though the High Court clearly gave them permission to move forward. The appointment of the Chief of Staff is an urgent security need, but it turns out that there are more urgent things.
No more than a decoration committee
It is also impossible not to refer to the very existence of the committee. This is a body of no importance and benefit whose role is to check the integrity of the senior appointments in the civil service who are not appointed through a search committee. This committee examines seven appointments in total: the Chief of Staff, the commissioner, the head of the Mossad, the head of the Shin Bet, the commissioner of prisons, the governor of the Bank of Israel, and the deputy governor of the Bank of Israel. It is impossible not to laugh at the fact that of all the appointments in the world, the committee examines the governor The Bank of Israel and its subsidiary.
This committee is denied any powers of inspection. Let’s say a complaint comes in regarding a candidate who committed an armed robbery 15 years ago. What will the committee do? Ask the candidate if things are correct? He will deny and that will be the end of the story.
Take the Yoav Galant case exposed by journalist Kalman Libeskind in Maariv. Galant was then chosen by the Minister of Defense to serve as Chief of Staff. The Advisory Committee received a complaint on the matter and requested the candidate’s response, which of course he denied. It requested the response of the Defense Minister, who said that the candidate denied. That was the end of the event as far as the committee was concerned, and Galant was approved by it. Finally, a petition to Beg “Z” and the intervention of the state auditor and the ombudsman torpedoed the appointment.
The committee has no real ability to examine the purity of the candidates’ morals, and it operates according to the standard of a decoration committee. Either do something serious, or spare us this joke.