The High Court issued a conditional order against the government’s decision to appoint Mani Mazuz to the position of chairman of the advisory committee for the appointment of senior officials, in favor of the selection of the Chief of Staff – and led to the opening of Pandora’s box.
■ Drama at the High Court: the prosecutor refused to compromise, and the judges issued a conditional order against Mazuz’s appointment
■ From the problems in the committee’s work to the revised recommendation: the path to electing the new ombudsman
Mazuz was recently appointed chairman of the committee, replacing Judge Eliezer GolNothing3 who passed away. The appointment aroused a lot of opposition in light of the fact that it is an eight-year appointment approved by a transitional government, due to Mazuz being identified with Netanyahu’s opponents, and for other reasons.
At the hearing, Judge Noam Solberg suggested that “out of respect for the government and appreciation for the legal advisor, it is appropriate to consider canceling the appointment of the 4th respondent (Mani Mazuz; AG) to serve as chairman for a full period of eight years, and to determine instead that the appointment to this position will become an appointment Ad hoc, for the purpose of examining the appointment of a candidate for the position regarding the Chief of Staff only, this is our proposal and my lord will consult with his senders.”
After a long pause, the representative of the ombudsman Gali Beharve-Miara announced that she rejects the proposal, and that after consulting with Mazuz – he also said that the proposal is not acceptable to him. Globes learned that the ombudsman’s position was accepted without prior consultation with the government, which appointed Mazuz, and not even with Prime Minister Yair Lapid who brought Mazuz’s name as a candidate for the cabinet meeting.
The ombudsman informed the legal bureau in the Prime Minister’s office, however Lapid himself was not involved and was in the middle of a meeting on another issue. Beharve-Miara consulted with Mazuz himself and gave the judges his objection even though he was not represented by her at all. However, she did not consider it appropriate to hear the Prime Minister’s position, or to bring the matter up for discussion at the cabinet meeting that appointed Mazuz and is represented by the ombudsman.
It should be noted that the claims of the Levi organization that petitioned the High Court were known to the government when it approved his appointment, but it seems that the obvious thing to do is to inform the client that the judge asked to consider canceling the appointment and offered another compromise. This was not done by Beharve-Miara.
Grunis: “She doesn’t have the training for the job”
And here’s a scoop: When Rabbi Miara’s candidacy for the position of ombudsman was discussed, retired Supreme Court President Asher Grunis, who served as chairman of the search committee, said in this language: “It’s like appointing a lieutenant colonel to the Chief of Staff. She does not have the professional training for the position.” Grunis was in a minority position, the other members of the committee voted in favor – and the candidate nominated by Justice Minister Gideon Sa’ar was approved. This, even though she had no experience in legal consulting for government ministries or in criminal cases.
As published in Globes, the committee conducted itself negligently, did not check recommendations, did not examine complaints and was not interested in the work plans of the candidates. The conduct of the committee may have benefited Beharev-Miara in the immediate term to be elected, but made her, against her advantage, an immediate suspect for being a legal advisor on behalf of Sa’ar, and for issuing unfounded opinions.
In real time, the list of recommenders for Behrev-Miara has already been published, and the great difficulty in including some of the recommenders who do not know her at all. One of them, according to her, even made it clear to the ombudsman that she could not recommend her due to her lack of professional acquaintance. This did not prevent Rabbi Miara from adding her name as a professional recommender. On her, there was Mani Mazuz.
We will not go into the nature of the relationship and professional acquaintance between the two (very superficial), but it is interesting in itself that Rabbi Miara added his name to the list of recommenders. A few months passed, and Prime Minister Lapid asked to appoint a replacement for the late Judge Eliezer Goldberg, chairman of the advisory committee for the appointment of senior officials in the civil service.
According to a source in the political system, Lapid brought to Miara a list of candidates for retired Supreme Court judges. Beharve-Miara said that they are all qualified, but she recommends Mazuz for the position, due to his familiarity with the systems as the ombudsman. So, on the one hand, Beharve-Miara receives a recommendation from Mezuz, and on the other hand, she recommends Lapid specifically over Mezuz. Now, she is even consulting with him on whether to accept the The proposal of the judges, but does not consult with the appointing authority.
The ombudsman allowed Lapid to bypass the cabinet
Beharev-Miara’s conduct made headlines in several other incidents. Thus, for example, when she authorized Lapid to eliminate the senior Islamic Jihad leader Taysir Jabari without discussion and approval of the cabinet, which is excluded from the decision, even though it was expected that the elimination would lead to a large-scale military operation. Although Hamas did not join the fighting, over 1,200 rockets were fired at Israel for three days.
Basic law: The government states that “the state will not start a war and will not take significant military action that may lead, with a level of probability close to certain, to war, except by virtue of the government’s decision.” The law allows the government to delegate authority to cabinet ministers. Some of the ministers were outraged by the division, but Beharve-Miara claimed that it was based on the position of the professionals who estimated that the action could not lead to war.
It should be remembered that before Netanyahu in 2019 asked to carry out an assassination that would start the “Black Belt” operation against the Islamic Jihad, with identical data, then-Owner Avichai Mandelblit forced him to get the Cabinet’s approval before carrying out the operation. Far-fetched? Not necessarily, but in light of the dubious way of appointing Beharev-Miara and her lack of experience in the laws of war and in providing legal advice to the government – it is not surprising that she is immediately suspected of being snobbish in relation to the party that appointed her.
This behavior was repeated around the appointment of the GLA commander. We will not repeat the chain of conduct, but we will content ourselves with the fact that the spokesperson allowed Defense Minister Benny Gantz to continue to let Galit Altstein serve as acting GLA commander for more than a year, even though she was personally chosen by the minister and even The search committee recommended appointing another candidate for the position.
Gantz delayed the convening of the search committee for a long time, and after the committee made its decision – Beharve-Miara stood on the back foot even against the publication of the name recommended by the committee. The ombudsman claimed that this was required because it was not an urgent appointment, and in order not to tie the hands of the next government. Beharve-Miara gave additional reasons, but logic says the opposite, and that in fact the sinner – Gantz – was hired. This is not the first time that the legal position of a ombudsman “Q will be controversial. However, her selection procedure, as mentioned, will accompany her for a very long time. Every decision she makes will be accompanied by fear of foreign motives, very possibly unjustly. In her coronation speech, the ombudsman spoke about public trust. It was certainly an entertaining event.