1. Judge Yitzhak Amit would have done well if he had convened the election committee even before the hearing of the appeal yesterday and corrected the inconceivable decision he made in the case of MK Amichai Shikli. After all, there is no potential judicial error that Amit’s decision is not tainted by: it is inconsistent with The language of the law, certainly not with the spirit of the law. It is extremely unreasonable, but before all this – it is not clear by what authority exactly the chairman of the Central Election Commission ignored an express ruling of the district court.
To sharpen the issue, let’s assume that the chairman of the election committee is another senior jurist. Would he dare to ignore the ruling of the district on the grounds that he assumed an authority that he does not have, and following this determination removes from the Knesset list a candidate who, relying on the ruling, resigned from the Knesset and joined an existing list , instead of exercising the option not to resign and run on an independent list? Would the phrase “contempt of court” be absent from the discourse if this was the practice of a jurist who is not a judge of the Supreme Court?
The optical error that caused all commentators and journalists to ignore the above is the fact – devoid of legal significance – that this is a Supreme Court judge. But the person who is authorized to amend district judgments is only the Supreme Court and not another administrative authority, or a holder of a quasi-judicial administrative position, even if he is a judge. The fact that this is a judge who is about to be appointed supreme president is not only not an extenuating circumstance, but the opposite. He is expected more than others to observe the dignity of the judicial system.
As a matter of fact, Shikli changed his situation for the worse by relying on the ruling of the District Court composed of three judges, who determined that if he resigns within four days of the date of their decision, he will be considered to have resigned close to his announcement as a retiree, and therefore he will be able to run for the Knesset on behalf of a faction in the outgoing Knesset. The court adopted a consensus Among the parties based on the opinion of the Knesset’s legal advisor, which the court expressly stated was also acceptable to him in person under the circumstances of the case. What the legal advisor knew, and the judges also understood well during the district hearing, is that the decision by the Knesset committee to see Shiki retire was fundamentally wrong, both in terms of the manner Its reception and its essence: it was received improperly.
Among its other defects that go to the root of its legality was the voting by replacement MKs who were not present at all in the discussions. And from a legal point of view, Section 6a(b) of the “Knesset” Basic Law states: In favor of his vote.” Of all the members of the Knesset who voted against their factions in the 24th Knesset, for one reason or another, the clear and accepted example of someone who initially acted from an ideological motive was Sheikli. Therefore, the result that he is the only one of them who is denounced as retiring is extremely improbable, and is not accepted by public opinion.
The argument according to which Shikli knew that the court ruled that the ruling required the approval of the chairman of the election committee does not hold water. The court was obliged, for the sake of politeness, to mention that the approval of a candidate who was declared retired involves the exercise of statutory authority by the chairman of the election committee. But the authorized party is not exempt from his duty to comply with the court’s ruling when he comes to exercise his authority. Another indirect evidence that the court considered the approval that Shiki does not interpret a formal legal action, and not a substantive decision, is the fact that he assigned it to the jurist who heads the committee and not to its plenary, which is authorized to make discretionary decisions.
Amit did not face it, apparently, as the chairman of the election committee, that he does not act as a judge of the Supreme Court, and therefore even if he had a different opinion, he should have stated: “Although I believe that the district erred and in the essence of the matter and in my opinion Shikli is resigning, I bow my head before The ruling of the court, which is wrong in my opinion, and he acts as required by it.”
2. The Likud, and religious Zionism on both of its components, should be punished for their representation in the Central Election Committee not showing up to vote for the disqualification of Balad. Fortunately, a majority was found that took the chestnuts out of the fire for the election committee, which has always supported the disqualification of Balad. As always, the decision went to the Supreme Court – which many estimated would this time be negative for the National Bloc’s position and decide to disqualify Balad, which is burning votes for the “Enlightened Bloc”. However, due to the paucity of evidence, pulling the left chestnuts out of the fire would seem too transparent in this case.
In principle, it is appropriate to repeal Section 7A of the “Knesset” Basic Law, according to which only Jews who love their people and their country were disqualified from the Supreme Court, while personalities such as Hiba Yazbek and Hanin Zoevi and the Balad Party were repeatedly approved there, and this, contrary to the position of the Knesset Committee and sometimes also contrary to the position of the Legal Counsel to the government. However, as long as Article 7A is in effect, the national camp had to support, without regret and without regret, the disqualification of Balad, and the same is true of the party of Ayman Odeh and Ahmed Tibi, who, unlike the leader of the Rem, Mansur Abbas – leads the religious-Muslim public to commitment To the position that Israel is a Jewish state in the present and in the future – striving (in democratic ways, admittedly) for the de-Judaization of the State of Israel.
3. The learned commentators on Italian affairs owe an apology to Mrs. Giorgia Maloney for the platitudes and false stereotypes that are repeated about her. Those who follow Italian politics were not surprised by her choice. Maloni, whose “Brothers of Italy” party shares a common faction with the parties of Matteo Salvini and Silvio Berlusconi, did not, unlike her partners, join the unity government with the left led by former European Bank President Mario Draghi, the apolitical.
Maloni, who remained in the opposition, gradually but steadily began to gain strength at the expense of her faction partners. Berlusconi, who weakened due to legal problems, and Salvini, who also crashed because of publications about a close relationship with Putin. The electoral system in Italy gives a group of parties that receives 40.1% or more, an additional additional delegates to 51% of the parliament. Maloney won 26%, and Berlusconi and Salvini 8.5% each, and received a majority of MPs.
For the benefit of those who define Meloni as an extreme right winger, below are the following facts. The right in the European Parliament is divided into three groups: the “left”, including the German Christian Democratic faction, the Austrian People’s Party, the ruling parties in the Netherlands and Luxembourg, and other moderate center-right parties. The “right-wing” of the three is Le Pen’s faction in France, the Freedom Party in Austria, the German Alternatives, the Dutch friend Israel Geert Wilders and others. Maloney is not part of this faction. It is in the group standing in the middle, the conservative-reformist faction, which was led until Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union by the British Conservative Party.
Its members are the ruling parties in Poland and the Czech Republic, the Spanish Vox and the Swedish Democratic Party, which was successful two weeks ago in the elections in Sweden. With Britain’s withdrawal from the Union, Maloney was chosen to head the conservative faction. Since each faction in the European Parliament also includes representatives from parties ideologically close to it from countries that are not members of the Union, one of whom is appointed to be the vice-chairman of the group, Meloni recently offered the vice-chairmanship to the Likud party, which at the time was added as a member of the organization on the recommendation of the British Conservative Party.
She even recommended that the Likud appoint MK Gila Gamaliel, who is the head of the foreign relations department in the Likud. This faction, together with parts of the more distinct right-wing faction, constitute a solid and consistent support in the European Parliament for the positions of Israel in general and the national camp in particular. Congratulations and good luck, c ‘Varja.
The writer is the president of the Likud court
[email protected]