Lawyer Ilan Bombach, the candidate for the presidency of the Bar Association and supporters of the dialogue surrounding the legislation to amend the judicial system, refers in an interview to Channel 7 to the Friedman-Albshan outline.
“The fact that there is an outline of one kind or another and there are people sitting on the dais is extremely important,” says Bombach and adds: “Instead of saying stop legislation and talk, just talk. This week there were days without legislation and it was possible to talk until white smoke came out, but that didn’t happen.”
Bombach expresses concern that any desire for dialogue will be met with resistance due to the oppositional political position in which leaders will fear how their consent to dialogue will be received in the eyes of their voters. “There are those who believe that if they speak, their base will see them as traitors to the ethos. People have fallen in love with the demonstrations. Benny Gantz says it is important to speak, but people like Lapid tell him why speak, you must not give a hand to it, you only need to demonstrate. This is what causes the people’s anger.” .
In such a reality, where the political arena finds it difficult to promote a real discourse, says Attorney Bombach, there is no escaping an outline that will come from factors outside the political system, as is the case with the President’s outline and the Friedman-Albshan outline.
According to attorney Bombach, the most important issue to be included in any outline is the retention of the Bar Association’s representation in the committee for selecting judges, and this is because not all issues are divided between right and left, and the professionalism and personality of the elected judge are of paramount importance, issues that are known mainly to those who know the judges in their work The everyday, meaning the lawyers. For this reason, according to Bombach’s view, the representation of two members of the bar association in the committee for selecting judges should be left
In response to his words, we ask if it is not correct to reconsider this in light of the past experience of the heads of the Bar Association, Efi Neve and Avi Himi, and in view of the fear of the dual interests of lawyers who choose the judges before whom they or their offices represent clients. Bombach replies that indeed in his opinion the members of the committee for the selection of judges not only themselves will not be able to appear before judges, but also their offices. As for the poor conduct of previous bureau chiefs, he says that deficiencies of this type can also arise with representatives of other bodies.
“One must understand that judges must first of all be professional and suitable for their position, and not examine things only from the political aspect, one must examine the aspects of whether you are fit to judge. A person is appointed a judge for his entire professional life, and if you appoint someone who is not suitable, he cannot be fired or removed, but Only if he has committed criminal acts. This is really a nail without a head. If a candidate arrives who is worn out, unprepared, not well versed in the law or the facts, he will remain a justice of the peace until the age of seventy and until then he will cause injustice to the parties. That is why a real revision is needed in the entire appointment process, but it is necessary to ensure that there is a presence of the Bar Association”.
Regarding the other sections in the Friedman-Albshan outline, Bombach says that these are issues that can definitely be agreed upon, discussed and compromised, “These things are not written in the Ten Commandments, and it is definitely possible to compromise and not everyone leaves with all their lust in hand, but peace and compromise are a supreme value. Giving up can be a terrible threat. We are finally coming to what I hope will mature into some kind of constitution.”
“The Harari Committee sat in 1950 and determined that basic laws would be established in the meantime, but what is their status, what happens to a law that contradicts a basic law, we don’t have a basic law of legislation and we don’t have a constitution. It would be good if all parties came together and reached a situation where we have a constitution,” says Bombach Logic in the idea that fundamental laws will be determined by a majority of 70 Knesset members or in a fourth reading in the next Knesset. “It is definitely an idea that can be accepted. Even if it is correct to perhaps refine it, the ideas are creative and they can show that they change the existing situation.”
“Until now, the supreme judges have determined that the legislators have not decided. If they had established a constitution or a basic law of legislation and stipulated things in an explicit manner, Judge Barak would not have written in the Mizrahi ruling things that disagree with it. Now we are talking and discussing and this is important, but it is important that it not be one-sided. If there is willingness For a compromise, something good can definitely come out of this,” says Bombach, commenting that “things shouldn’t be in the media. It’s good that these things don’t get sunburned and there’s real dialogue. That’s the only way they’ll reach a fruitful and genuine dialogue that will lead to an agreement. It really doesn’t matter if there’s an override clause in -70 or 65 and how laws will be rejected, provided there is agreement in the Knesset.”