After a particularly dramatic legal saga, the High Court decided last Thursday on canceling the appointment of Meni Mazuz as the chairman of the committee for the appointment of senior officials, after they found that “it is not in line with the restrictions that apply during an election period, as explicitly stated in the instructions of the ombudsman”.
As I recall, this decision comes after a petition submitted by the ‘Lavi’ organization and following which the judges proposed to the state to make the appointment temporary so that Mazuz could approve the appointment of a new Chief of Staff, a proposal that was refused by the ombudsman Mia and Mazuz himself refused as well, who insisted on a permanent appointment for eight years. On this, Judge Solberg wrote that “this approach reflects, in practice, a deviation from the law” regarding appointments during an election period. According to him, the respondents in their conduct “turned the set of rules on its head – the exception became the rule and the rule was the exception”.
To sum up the unusual affair that ended in severe devastation for the ombudsman and the country in general, we will briefly examine its stars.
Waves in Harv Miara
The main star in the farce. Starting with her strange insistence on defending the problematic appointment, through her puzzling refusal to listen to the insinuations of the judges who offered her several steps to get off the tree, her decision not to bring the matter to a renewed discussion in the government, to the sharp ruling of the judges that was actually aimed against her and the way she conducted herself – the poor judgment shown by the ombudsman in the case casts a large shadow on her ability to continue functioning properly.
The appointment of Miara was born in sin. The chairman of the search committee, Judge Grunis, opposed her candidacy because, according to him, the professional experience she has gained does not qualify her for the position. In addition, as revealed in ‘Globes’, Miara mentioned among her recommenders people who they claim do not know her at all, and increased this when she added Judge Baron to the list The recommenders, even though she refused to recommend her. Among those recommenders was also Manny Mazuz.
From there things only got worse. Miara quickly became the government’s rubber stamp, when, among other things, she approved the launch of a military operation in Gaza without a cabinet meeting, she authorized the Minister of Defense to appoint a new Chief of Staff despite the rules of restraint used during elections, and on the other hand, she refused to approve the appointment of a permanent commander for the GLA, contrary to legal opinions, and to leave In her role, she is Gantz’s preferred substitute.
Recently, it was also revealed that Judge Ronan, who discussed the petition against Mazuz, is the best friend of the ombudsman, which did not prevent either of them from conveniently ignoring it. Add the latest humiliation in that petition and you get a particularly grim balance sheet for the “rule of law”.
Manny Mazuz
This week the retired judge got a nice taste of the porridge he cooked for all of us for years. As you may remember, Mazuz, upon his return to the supreme throne, twice froze the intention of the Minister of Justice Ohana to appoint an acting state attorney, claiming that this was a transitional government and an election period. In another case where Minister Ohana asked to appoint an acting director general of his office, Mazoz once again blocked the procedure, which according to him “contradicted the directive of the ombudsman and directly contradicts a ruling of the Supreme Court”. Mazuz also refused to disqualify himself from hearing the petitions, despite personal statements he made against the minister.
Judge Mazuz claimed that he was not talking about Minister Ohana specifically when he said “Minister vs me”. Specifically, Guy Zohar listened – and he did a little#from the other side With @guyzo pic.twitter.com/cI3ubK5B1j
— here news (@kann_news) May 5, 2020
These were just a few of the many sailboats tied up in Mazuz’s name, and in the current affair he took his arrogance and arrogance to new heights. After he was offered by the court to be appointed in a temporary appointment as the chairman of the committee to complete the appointment of the required Chief of Staff, he refused and led to the freezing of the appointment. But even after the judges’ decision to cancel the permanent appointment, Mazuz still refused a temporary appointment.
And here the question arises – if the appointment of a Chief of Staff is an unprecedentedly essential move for Israel’s security, as claimed by Miara and the state, why does Mazoz persist in his refusal and thus harm national security? After all, in his place, former judge Rubinstein was finally appointed on a temporary basis, who did so without any problem and with the aim of promoting the Appointment of the Chief of Staff. What prevented Mezuz from acting like this himself instead of dragging us all into an embarrassing saga in court, other than arrogance and detachment?
Government of Israel
In an ideal world, we wouldn’t need all this complication at all. An elected government should have the ability to appoint to senior positions whom it deems appropriate, and should not be dependent on the mercy of various search committees or legal advisors.
But in Israel of recent years, as long as right-wing governments were in power, they had a lot of difficulty with appointments in general and during election periods in particular. As we partially detailed earlier, every appointment that the Likud governments sought to promote encountered a multitude of political and legal objections, and especially during the transitional governments that were completely silent in this regard, in the face of the Ombudsman’s directives and High Court rulings.
The easiest and most logical solution was to also allow the current government to appoint Mazuz, but on the condition that the next government could replace him if it wished, and as it is allowed to do according to law. But as we are already used to, what is allowed to the left is strictly forbidden to the right, and in this context the disqualification of mezuz constitutes the end of the beginning of balance, at least in appearance.
Those who have suffered an image blow here are Justice Minister Sa’ar who gave full backing to his preferred ombudsman even though most signs showed that she was headed for an embarrassing stumble in the Mazuz case, and Prime Minister Lapid who insisted on the appointment despite the petition and even after the entanglement at the High Court.
High Court judges
Following on from the previous section, here too the familiar conservative dilemma between governance and legal activism arises. However, at the end of the day, the conduct of all the respondents in the petition, from Mayara to Mazuz, left the judges no choice but to disqualify the appointment.
Attorney Yitzhak Bam who represents the Lavi organization: a yellow card for the ombudsman and Mazuz. In the State of Israel there is one law for all. pic.twitter.com/Q8m5FTXCj3
— Hezkei Baruch (@HezkeiB) September 7, 2022
The Ombudsman and Mazuz were given several opportunities to get off the tree in a dignified manner, and as mentioned Mazuz even refused a temporary appointment even after the decision. The reports from the courtroom also revealed the puzzling behavior of the state representatives, who simply could not explain why the Ombudsman insists on acting in this case contrary to the instructions her own, and provided mostly flimsy excuses.
Everyone agreed that the appointment of a chairman to the committee was required mainly for the purpose of approving the appointment of the new Chief of Staff, but Miara and her people decided to put all their gold on a permanent eight-year appointment of the controversial Mazuz. They refused any compromise or other alternative that was proposed in order to promote the Chief of Staff’s approval (which is so necessary according to Miara), and finally ended up without an appointment and without a stipend. From this point of view, it can be said that a little public justice was indeed done in the court.