Change the system, fix the problem

By Yitzhak Ram, ISRAEL HAYOM

Very few public bodies have more influence over our lives than the Judicial Selection Committee. The litigiousness of public life in Israel has made judges main players in the social and public sphere, and courtrooms have become the primary arenas for sorting out public disagreements. The Supreme Court has assumed the authority to torpedo democratic decisions and political compromises.

Due to the interpretive doctrine currently pervading the country’s higher courts, laws cease to have meaning in and of themselves. It is the interpreter of the law who gives it its meaning, a meaning often completely unrelated to the intention and desires of the lawmakers who drafted it. Today, the monopoly on legislative interpretation belongs to the court, whose judges are appointed by a nine-member committee which works behind closed doors to perpetuate that same monopoly.

All power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. When such immense power is put into the hands of so very few, corruption becomes probable. However, public life is not possible without a governmental entity operated by human beings. In democratic societies, therefore, mechanisms are created to limit and monitor the government, to mitigate the concerns over potential corruption. One of these mechanisms is transparency. Sunlight, according to former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, is the best of disinfectant; electric light the most efficient policeman. Even the most corrupt individuals will pause before daring to display open contempt for the public.

The Judicial Selection Committee is the civilian body most shielded from the sunlight. Its hearings are closed and its protocols secret. In a ruling from 2008, then-Justice Esther Hayut said the Judicial Selection Committee was not a “public authority” under the Freedom of Information Law, and therefore was not bound by it. Even if it were bound by the law, said the future Supreme Court president, there were still no grounds to open its hearings to the public due to the sensitive nature of the discussions. Furthermore, said Hayut, it was important to allow the participants to express themselves freely, without fear of their comments becoming public fodder.

The concentration of power in the hands of a small committee that operates behind a thick curtain is an invitation for corruption, nepotism, cronyism and other underhanded dealings. And while these are certainly unfortunate and regrettable aspects of life in the political arena, it is truly sickening when purportedly apolitical players get in on the act.

The makeup of the Judicial Selection Committee gives the judges a built-in advantage – they comprise one-third of the committee; they don’t have to deal with a coalition or an opposition and they vote as one. Indeed, from the time the committee was established until recently, the judges aggressively determined all appointments. Via the “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” system, uniformity of thought has pervaded the Supreme Court, such that its monopoly over legal interpretation and principles has become almost entirely hegemonic.

Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked wanted to diversify the panel of Supreme Court justices. She had to choose between changing the system and a tactical fight over specific appointments. Changing the system was a strategic matter, and when she chose not to pursue that path, she had to find allies on the Judicial Selection Committee who could help her override the judges’ influence. Representatives of the Israel Bar Association were these allies.

The criticism over the well-intentioned alliance between the justice minister and Effi Naveh, head of the Israel Bar Association, misses the main problem. The alliance itself isn’t the issue, nor is the corruption. The corruption is just the result. The real problem is the structure of a system that permits and encourages personal corruption on one hand and empowers the opportunistic and corrupt individuals on the other.

To overcome the crisis of corruption and ensure diversity of interpretive thought and principle in the legal system, it is not enough to forge alliances on the existing committee. The system itself has to be changed – this pernicious committee has to be terminated; appointment power must be taken away from the judges; and judges should be appointed by elected officials in an open and transparent process, per the norm in Western democracies.

Attorney Yitzhak Ram is a jurist.

January 17, 2019 | 7 Comments »

Leave a Reply

7 Comments / 7 Comments

  1. The so-called “legal advisor” to the Prime Minister, who is appointed by the Attorney General and who can be fired only by the Attorney General, serves two functions 1) to prevent the PM from taking any action that the AG and the Supreme Court opposes and 2) to act as a snitch who informs the Attorney General and the “Supremes” of any action by the Prime Minister that could be used as a basis to prosecution. There are no other countries in the world where the head of government has a “legal advisor” assigned to him who is appointed by someone else, who can be fired only by someone else, can prevent him from taking any action, spy on him, and assist in his prosecution if he fails to obey orders from the “someone else.” This is today’s Jerusalem Post illustrates all of these aspects of Israel’s unique system of government:

    Netanyahu tries to fire his office’s legal advisor, Mandelblit says no
    Barnea-Fargo has been the legal adviser to the Prime Minister’s Office since 2001, during the tenure of Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, and since Netanyahu returned as prime minister in 2009.

    Netanyahu tries to fire his office’s legal advisor, Mandelblit says no
    In an election video released by Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon, Netanyahu is depicted as throwing blades at the Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit. (photo credit: Courtesy)
    Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried to fire his office’s legal adviser, Shlomit Barnea-Fargo, who is considered an important witness in the cases against him, his wife and his associates, Haaretz reported Friday.

    The Jerusalem Post has independently confirmed the report.

    Netanyahu requested permission from Attorney-General Avichai Mandelblit to fire Barnea-Fargo, but Mandelblit vetoed the request.
    Though Barnea-Fargo is an employee of the prime minister’s office, her ultimate duty is to preserve the law because she is a government lawayer and she falls under Mandelblit’s authority in the chain of command.

    Firing Barnea-Fargo could be construed as a significant violation of conflict of interest principles and even an attempt to obstruct justice since she is testifying against the prime minister, his wife Sara, and his associates.

    A spokesman for Netanyahu said that his faith in Barnea-Fargos’ abilities had deteriorated. It is possible that legal or political considerations prevented him from providing further specific details.

    Barnea-Fargo has been the legal adviser to the Prime Minister’s Office since 2001, during the tenure of Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, and throughout Netanyahu’s tenure since returning to prime minister in 2009.

    It is unclear what changed in Netanyahu’s view of Barnea-Fargo’s professional work, other than her testimony in the public corruption cases.

    Barnea-Fargo testified to the police against Netanyahu in Case 4000, the Bezeq-Walla Affair, against his associates David Shimron and Yitzhok Molcho in Case 3000, the Submarines Affair and against Sara Netanyahu in the Prime Minister’s Residence Affair.

    The news may serve as a new strong argument to undermine Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked’s efforts to push a new bill through the Knesset which would give politicians greater control over the appointment of government legal advisers.

    Opponents of the bill have warned that if Shaked’s bill passes, officials like Barnea-Fargo may put more emphasis on their loyalties to the particular minister who appointed them than to the rule of law.

    In contrast, when Barnea-Fargo testified to police, her ultimate duty was owed to Mandelblit and the rule of law and not to political considerations.

    Shaked’s office has not yet responded to an inquiry as to whether her position has changed on the proposed bill.

    By the way, this reporter, Yonah Jeremy Bob, is a mouthpiece for the AG and the Shaback.

  2. This is a very informative report on the Effie Naveh affair in Arutz Sheva:

    Police say probe in sex-for-promotion scandal handled properly
    Amid rising criticism over the probe that has rocked Israel’s legal establishment, police insist investigation conforms to legal norms.

    Effie Naveh
    Amid rising criticism over the handling of the probe into now-former Israel Bar Association head Effie Naveh, police insist that the investigation conforms to basic legal norms.

    Police are investigating allegations that Naveh promoted judges in exchange for sexual favors. As a member of the Judicial Appointments Committee, Naveh had significant sway in the appointment process for judges. Naveh is facing charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust.

    Police have come under criticism after reports said that Naveh’s alleged philanderous behavior after Army Radio reporter Hadas Shteif illegally hacked into his cellphone and found incriminating messages between the judges and Naveh. Shteif reportedly received immunity from the State Attorney’s Office in exchange for turning over the contents of his cell phone, leading many jurists to conclude that the evidence may not be admissible in court.

    Yet police insisted in a statement on Friday that “all relevant investigative activities were done lawfully, balancing the various interests involved”.

    “The investigation is conducted with the approval of the authorized bodies, with the support of the Central District Attorney’s Office and the State Attorney’s Office,” continued the police statement.

    Regarding the allegations that Shteif was the main source of the information regarding Naveh, police said that “without confirming or denying any of the allegations made in various publications regarding the way in which the information reached the enforcement authorities, we would point out that the investigation deals only with the examination of suspicions of criminal offenses in connection with the appointment of judges, and does not deal with other matters”.

    On Thursday, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel called on prosecutors to scrap the investigation into Naveh following reports that Shtief has illegally hacked into his cell phone. “There is no room for Naveh in public service and we must make sure that such a thing does not happen again, but if the information is correct, the investigation must be closed immediately,” said the organization in a statement,

    The probe revolves around allegations that Naveh exploited his seat on the Judicial Appointments Committee in order to receive sexual favors from judges and their spouses in exchange for promotions.

    The nine-member Judicial Appointments Committee, headed by the Justice Minister, is responsible for all judicial appointments in Israel. Aside from the Justice Minister, the committee is composed of an additional cabinet minister, two MKs, including one from the opposition, two Bar Association representatives, and three Supreme Court justices, including the Chief Justice.

    Naveh was also known for his close relationship with Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, which enabled the latter to swing the Supreme Court to the right. The committee needs a majority of 7 out of its 9 members to appoint Supreme Court judges. Since neither political camp has such a majority, deals need to be struck between them. As such, Naveh has served as a key swing vote to confirming Shaked’s conservative nominees.

    The scandal currently rocking Israel’s judicial system is not Naveh’s first brush with the law. Last month, Naveh was arrested at Ben Gurion Airport for allegedly enabling unidentified women to enter the country without a passport. Naveh claims that the incident was part of an ugly divorce he is going through, adding that he had only smuggled in the woman in order to avoid tipping off private investigators that she had entered the country.

    Apparently the suspect is indeed corrupt, but the investigation is being handled in a manner inconsitent with Naveh’s civil rights. Obviously, Manbelblit is target Nave because he helped her to appoint some conservative judges. Mandelblit and his masters, the overwhelming leftist majority on the court, regard this as an intolerable Betrayal, and resolved to “get something” on Naveh to punish him. Both the suspecct and the prosecution smell very, very, bad. Both demonstrate the need to reform the corrupt judicial appointment system, and to reign in the power of the courts.

  3. More from Friday’s Israel Hayom:

    This isn’t how you choose judges
    It’s still too soon to predict how the legal scandal we learned about will develop, but if the suspicions reported from time to time about bribery, in the form of sexual favors or anything else, in exchange for influencing judicial appointments are true, we are talking about the worst scandal yet, one that taints the entire judicial system and strikes a serious blow to the public’s faith in it.

    Yes, in a perfect world the halls of justice would be like a sanctuary, where the fate of ordinary people and influential people was decided with absolute equality, and the public could rest assured that trials were fair. Unfortunately, the real picture is far from being so euphoric, for several reasons: too many plea bargains, bureaucracy in the legal system, and more. But still, there are judges in Jerusalem and most of them do their work faithfully. It’s important to remember that fact and not besmirch the entire system.

    Nevertheless, not all criticism of the judicial system should be waved off immediately by Pavlovian claims that criticism is an “attack on the rule of law,” destroying democracy, and other clichés. The case of unparalleled severity we are now seeing – if indeed the suspicions that a lawyer and judges committed crimes are proved true – might not be the direct result of the system by which judges are appointed, but it raises serious questions about the Judicial Selection Committee.

    Don’t be fooled – judges being appointed by committee is the result of deals, of “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours” and negotiations. Supreme Court justices, who generally vote as one bloc on the committee, present their candidates. Politicians also put forth their own candidates, and representatives of the Israel Bar Association present theirs. Various “coalitions” are stitched together to promote one candidate and reject another, and there is no guarantee that in the end the most qualified candidates are appointed. This isn’t how you choose judges.

    There is definitely room to look into why, in most democratic, liberal countries, including the U.S., judges are appointed through other methods, and not by a committee burdened by deal-making. Israel needs to find another way, one in which the executive branch and parliament appoint judges while ensuring appropriate checks and balances, to rank the candidates appropriately, and possibly even hold respectful public confirmation hearings.

    The judicial system needs to be fixed. Only recently, we witnessed the disgraceful text message affair in which Judge Ronit Poznanski-Katz was involved. The disciplinary court decided to suspend her, but a few days later the High Court of Justice put her back on the bench. The scandal surrounding Effi Naveh and the judges is another jolt to the public’s faith in the legal system – faith that is vital to democracy. Because without judges among the people, where would we turn?

    Yossi Hadar was a legal correspondent for Israel Radio’s Reshet Bet

  4. More from Israel Hayom:

    An unprincipled system
    1.

    Effi Naveh is part of the system. The system is a legal oligarchy, the rule of a minority group that has taken for itself powers unprecedented in a western democracy, and through them, rules us. And not only does it hold authority beyond the bounds of the judiciary; it also appoints itself. And not only does it hold exceptional powers and have the ability to appoint itself, it cannot be supervised. There is no one to watch over the watchmen. Any criticism of the group is decried as “an attack on rule of law.” And not only does the group have unprecedented powers and self-appointment, and is not subject to oversight, it can also cancel out the letter of a law as it was enacted by elected public officials. It can do so by interpreting the “spirit of the law,” according to which a judge can force the legislation to do figure eights in the air and wind up the opposite of what the legislator intended.

    Judges interpret “the spirit of the law” based on their own private world: their values, their political and cultural worldviews. But because of the aura that hangs over the legal process, the judges who hand down verdicts are treated differently than media and academic figures. When it comes to the latter, we know that journalists or researchers cannot help but express their political and culture worldviews, especially in the fields of humanities and social sciences. We shouldn’t treat judges any differently. As long as they do not restrict themselves to the letter of the law, but rather invent new laws through interpretation, they cannot escape their own prejudices and perspectives, and these are expressed in their rulings. Astonishingly, judges are human beings.

    2.

    This system puts too much power in the hands of the judges. And as with all excessive power, “sin crouches at the door and desires to have them,” including the possibility of corruption. Naveh is not the first person in the legal system to go bad. The Judicial Selection Committee – an mysterious institution that for years has worked to uphold the power of the legal oligarchy – includes three judges, two representatives of the Israel Bar Association, and four politicians – including two ministers, one of whom is the justice minister, who chairs the committee. Five jurists vs. four elected officials. Over the years, the lawyers’ guild functioned according to desire of the Supreme Court justices, helping them preserve the legal oligarchy’s power. Otherwise, it’s difficult to understand how lawyers could have been allowed to appoint judges.

    Supreme Court Chief Justice Esther Hayut expressed this in a letter she sent to former chief justices last November. She praised as miraculous the years of cooperation between the IBA and the judges. According to Hayut, it was “cooperation between two entities that are guided first and foremost by professional considerations in choosing the highest-quality candidates for the position [of judge].”

    It’s always strictly “professional considerations,” because we’re talking about the angels of the Supreme Court. Not only are they geniuses who know better than us mortals what is good for the country and what values we should all adopt, they also never lust after power and control, and would never work out deals to promote a specific judge who might, from the side, appear unworthy of sitting on the bench, but who is close with the legal oligarchy, a close family member, or close to it in terms of his politics and values. As if we’ve forgotten how relatives of certain well-known judges were promoted – it wasn’t because of their unusual abilities.

    3.

    Effi Naveh was exposed with a bang because he was drunk with power – power given to him because of the rotten system. But it is not impossible that unworthy judges have been appointed going back years. The field of law is no different from politics, academia, or the media – some people are smarter than others. The problem is that the court has too much power and has upset the balance between the three branches of government. Judges can get drunk on power, too. As of now, the Supreme Court is operating not only as the judicial branch, but also as the legislative and executive branches.

    One current example of the Supreme Court’s power high is the acceptance of petitions to the High Court of Justice against the nation-state law, which is one of Israel’s basic laws. Thus far, the judges – as part of the “judicial revolution” – have ruled that a basic law has the status of a super-law, part of the constitution that is in the making. That is how “regular” laws, which according to the justices’ interpretation contradicted existing basic laws, have been rejected. Now the nation-state law doesn’t square with their ideological views, and we are starting to hear opinions that perhaps a basic law can be rejected if it goes against the “underlying principles of the system.” That’s a vague statement, and it’s no coincidence. Because who determines the “principles of the system”? The judges, of course. Sin indeed crouches at their door.

    It doesn’t end there. Recently, we learned that the courts collect information on citizens who have expressed criticism of judges, claiming that the protections for free speech “are not absolute.” Could we imagine what the court would say if any other entity – one of the government ministries, let’s say – keeping tabs on people who have a negative opinion of it?

    Getting drunk on power is demonstrated in a number of ways. With Effi Naveh, it was in a particularly ugly manner. In my opinion, stealing the freedom of Israel’s citizens to decide their own fate – in doing so, the Supreme Court attacks the authority of elected officials and intervenes in political matters that are none of its business but should be decided in public forums or at the voting booth – is much worse than what Naveh is accused of (trading influence for sexual favors.) The rottenness of the system demands that lawyers no longer be represented on the Judicial Selection Committee, which must publish protocols of its discussions to let sunshine disinfect the corruption.

    A Labor Party figure, a well-known personality in legal circles, once said that the criticism of the Supreme Court and the Judicial Selection Committee was correct. “So why don’t politicians take action on the situation?” he was asked. “Because everyone is afraid to; everyone has a skeleton in the closet, and the system knows how to cook up cases.” That is what it did to Yaakov Naaman, for example, when he was appointed justice minister and the system didn’t want him to be. Shimon Shabas, director-general of the Prime Minister’s Office for the late Yitzhak Rabin, testified to that on television: “The attorney general (then Michael Ben Yair), told me, for my ears only, ‘I’m going to screw the fascist.'” And there are plenty of other examples.

    4.

    Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked did what judges have done for years – she struck an alliance with the bar association on the Judicial Selection Committee to promote heterogeneity among judges. It’s a shame she didn’t start out by challenging the system and the method, like she recently did with Deputy Attorney General Dina Silber, declaring she would not allow Silber to appear in the Knesset. Instead, Shaked decided to change things a little from inside. If she hadn’t gotten the IBA on her side, the Supreme Court justices would have – and just kept appointing whomever they wanted. That makes no difference to the devotes of the totalitarian system, MKs like Shelly Yachimovich, Merav Michaeli, and Stav Shafir, who attacked Shaked. Improving the court and strengthening the public’s faith in it was not important to them, only the desire to grab imaginary political capital.

    With timing that is not surprising, even Prof. Mordechai Kremnitzer, whom former Chief Justice Aharon Barak called a “righteous among the nations,” has concluded that the best way to close the loophole is to make the chief justice head of the committee. That is how the judges exert control over us, without any oversight. Add Kremnitzer’s pal, Hebrew University of Jerusalem Rector Barak Medina, who last week called on the Supreme Court to obligate the Knesset to vote no-confidence in itself, lest there be grounds for a “civil war,” and you get (un)enlightened totalitarianism.

    Dror Eydar has been appointed Israeli ambassador to Italy.

  5. This from today’s Jerusalem Post:

    The rise and fall of Efi Nave – From top lawyer kingmaker to arrest
    From trailblazing lawyer to bottom of the system, in handcuffs

    Effi Naveh in court
    Effi Naveh in court. (photo credit: REUVEN CASTRO)
    Israel Bar Association head Efi Nave was once lauded as the most powerful man in Israel’s legal arena. He was supported by the country, and when things went sour, he was aided by silence, lots of it.

    This refusal to speak against him was shared by the community of legal professionals, members of the board in charge of the bar and the Justice Ministry. All of them refused to denounce his behavior and demand that he resign. Everybody was waiting for the court to issue a ruling.

    Even when Nave was faced with some alarming allegations, it was easy to find people in the top echelons of the legal establishment to decisively argue against him – until today. The police arrested Nave, along with a magistrate’s court judge and the wife of another magistrate’s court judge, under suspicion of involvement in a scheme of trading sexual favors for judicial appointments.

    Nave is being investigated for demanding sexual favors from the wife of a magistrate’s court judge who was seeking promotion to become a district court judge a couple of years ago.

    With the allegations now out, those around him are raising their voices for the first time.

    “He reached great heights, and now he hits great lows,” wrote top legal bar members in their resignation letter released this week.

    This line summarizes Nave’s story. He, more than any other head of the bar, directed the bar toward attaining political influence, and he was admired beyond any of his predecessors in that role. Now he’s at the bottom of the legal system, in custody and handcuffs. This reduced status is personal as well as professional.

    Who is Efi Nave? How did he gain so many supporters? And what led him to this point?

    The 50-year-old Nave was born and raised in Ashkelon and studied law in Ramot Mishpat College. Years later, when he became the head of the bar, he said colleges provide students with a low-level of education and that was why many college graduates fail when they attempt to pass the bar examination.

    IN 1995, after finishing his internship in a Tel Aviv peace court, Nave was given his license to practice law and established the Attias-Nave law firm, which focused on personal injury law.

    Liberman attacks government for seeking extension on haredi enlistment bill, January 14, 2019 (Reuters Facebook)

    Now Playing

    Liberman attacks government for seeking extension on haredi enlistment bill, January 14, 2019 (Reuters Facebook)

    Minister of the Interior Aryeh Deri visits the Theresienstadt concentration camp, January 13, 2019 (Ministry of Interior)

    Netanyahu takes responsibility for Saturday attacks at Damascus airport, January 13, 2019 (GPO)

    Confirmation Hearing to Probe AG Nominee William Barrs Views on Executive Privilege

    Haredi activist to run in labour elections, January 3, 2019 (Courtesy)

    Bennet and Shaked announce a new right-wing party, December 30, 2018 (Courtesy)

    Mays Brexit defeat triggers new confidence vote, January 16, 2019 (Reuters)

    His rise to power was fast. In 2011, he became head of the Tel Aviv District Court and served as the head of its ethics committee, a role that now sounds ironic.

    In 2015, he began serving as head of the bar association.

    Nave, a father of six, is currently in the process of divorcing his second wife. This divorce is now public, following recent media coverage.

    Nave became the “official” face of the bar association. He appeared in every possible forum, took photos with every legal person of note, gained a place on the Judicial Selection Committee, and became a close ally of Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked. One of the better known things he did was to work with the news program Uvdah (“Fact”), where he documented himself speaking with judges and lawyers at the bar association’s annual event in Eilat – without informing the speakers they were being recorded.

    Add that to a growing reports that he has been illegally using a handicapped parking permit, and the legal community still failed to criticize him.

    His personal feud with reporter Sharon Shpurer – which led to him filing a one-million shekel libel lawsuit against her – did not lead other reporters to write against him.

    Even the publication two months ago that he was suspected of criminal acts, and was convicted of illegally leaving and entering the country with his current partner as part of a conflict with his wife, did not cause him personal damage.
    Now it looks as if he is in trouble over his head. As the top lawyer in Israel’s legal system he must understand that.

    Supreme Court President Esther Hayut sent a letter to all of Israel’s judges offering them her support in this “uneasy time.” Shaked voiced her discontent with Nave, using very cautious words.

    We’re still some distance away from this allegations being tested in a court of law, dismissed or accepted as truthful. Yet the legal and political authorities in the land must ask themselves how a person of such low moral standards reached such a mighty position.

  6. This is another good article about the selection process for judges in Israel, from Israel Hayom:

    The Left’s self-serving outrage
    Israel’s judiciary is in crisis. If Israel Bar Association Chairman Effi Naveh did what he is accused of doing – promising promotions of judges in return for sexual favors – our entire court system will have been tainted.

    Rumors tend to get overblown by the media for political purposes. But in this case, the gravity of the matter means the rumors cannot be ignored, lest the public lose trust in judges or the people who are entrusted with appointing them.

    As a lawyer who knows our legal system from within, I can categorically state that the overwhelming majority of judges in Israel – including those appointed in recent years – are well-qualified, diligent, hardworking and honest individuals.

    Yes, I occasionally feel wronged by the courts when they rule against my clients, but I have never second-guessed their integrity or their motives.

    It is unfortunate that a few bad apples can spoil the entire legal world and give judges a bad name. Our sages warned that we should never reach a situation in which we have to put our judges on trial.

    Our system for appointing judges dates to the 1950s. The Judicial Selection Committee comprises Supreme Court Justices, cabinet ministers, MKs and members of the Israel Bar Association.

    Such a confirmation process is unique to Israel, drawing both praise and criticism. Since the members of the committee represent different power centers, they occasionally disagree over who should be appointed. This means that compromise and alliances are key to the process, and often lead to deals in the form of “You make sure my nominee is confirmed, and I will do the same for yours.”

    There is nothing wrong with striking such deals, so long as there is no foul play or personal greed involved. For years on end, the supreme court judges on the committee were closely aligned with the representatives of the Israel Bar Association, while the MKs on the committee were closely aligned with the cabinet ministers.

    Because such coalitions are common practice, one must wonder why people have been aghast over only one such alliance – the one between Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked and Naveh. This alliance has been a battle cry for purists, fake pundits, and left-wing activists who want to grab the headlines.

    For many years, Supreme Court justices on the committee could effectively block any appointment that was not to their liking. This ensured that only people who shared the Supreme Court’s view of judicial activism would get appointed by the committee.

    Then came Shaked, who managed to get the committee to appoint conservative judges who believe in judicial restraint and deference to the legislative branch as the true voice of the people. The Israeli Left has never forgiven Shaked for this, fearing it might lose its last three bastions: the Supreme Court, the media and academia.

    Trying to implicate Shaked in this case because of her association with Naveh is just nasty. Those hysteria-peddling fake pundits, along with the judicial purists, have tried to cast aspersions on Shaked’s conduct not because they want to protect our judiciary and the rule of law, but because they want to derail her efforts to right the historical wrongs in our legal system. The vitriol and attacks against Shaked will ultimately come back to hurt the courts.

    I disagree with Shaked over her political conduct, but I have not the slightest of doubts as to her integrity, trustworthiness and her sense of duty as Justice Minister. I am confident she won’t be intimidated by the slander and character assassination and will continue to work hard to reform the judiciary until Israel once again has a system of checks and balances.

  7. This is an extremely informative article which explains the tyranny of Israel’s Supreme Court and the semi-secret selection committee, consisting in part of private citizens, that appoints it. The author also explains that Shaked’s decision to work with the existing selection committee to to find support from fsome of its members for the appointment of better judges, rather than working to change appointment system, was a “strategic” mistake.

    The charges of sexual blackmail made against the former head of the selection committee and the Israeli Bar Association sounds like yet another politically motivated frame up. Attorney general Mandelblit, who is leading this prosecution, has been brazen in his abuse of power by persuing criminal investigations as a means of driving politicians whose policies he opposes, such as bibi Netanyahu, from office. Now Mandelblitt is seeking to punish the former selection committee head for “betraying” the Supreme Court by agreeing to the appointment of some conservative judges to the supreme court and lower courts. The former selection committee and Bar Association head may or may not be guilty of the sexual misconduct charges against him. But they would almost certainly not have been made without his “disloyalty” to the leftist Supreme Court justices and their appointed Attornet General Mandelblit.