State Attorney Appointment Continues to Dispute • While Some Experts Claim to Be Unfair about Election, Others Claim That This Is a Potential Harm to the System • However, it is widely believed that Supreme Court will not interfere in election • Minister Ohana: "Opponents have no compelling argument"

• Amir Ohana and Orly Ben Ari

Ben Ari's appointment storm: Justice Minister Amir Ohana was interviewed Tuesday (Tuesday) for the plan by Kalman Libeskind and Aral Sgt. Here, 11, defending the controversial appointment. "Ben Ari is the appropriate attorney for the position. It is capable of preserving what is needed in the system, "the minister said, adding," I am an acting director, not a state attorney. Will not cause harm or catastrophe. "

"I'm ready to go to the High Court. I'm on stable ground. I have no answer as to why the Civil Service Commissioner wrote the letter. Bouncing is not an argument. Neither the Judiciary nor the Commissioner have a convincing argument. " Ohana went on to criticize the appointment, "Why was Rachel Avishar, who jumped five degrees, promoted to Central District Attorney?", He asked. "Whatever is allowed to Jupiter is also allowed to bull. They may not be allowed to jump five ranks up, but come to me with allegations. A three-month appointment will not cause harm," the minister concluded.

"The Minister of Justice has consulted Mandelblit, but it is not his duty to accept his opinion"

At the same time, in a conversation with "Israel Today" experts estimated that the High Court would not interfere in the decision to appoint Ben Ari to the State Attorney General, although they disagreed about the appointment himself.

Attorney Ilan Bombach, an expert in administrative law and senior attorneys in Israel, believes that there is no fault in appointing the State Attorney and there is no reason for the High Court to intervene. "This is an experienced attorney, who speaks completely in all the interests of the Attorney General. She has a great deal of experience and so on this side there is no problem of reasonableness in the appointment, moreover, constitutionally it is a role that the legislature has given to the Minister of Justice and not to the Attorney General - it is right within the authority of the Minister. "

Bombach went on to say that the Attorney General has the option of presenting his own candidate, "but that does not mean that the Minister must accept the nomination of the Attorney General, since then there is no significance to the authority and power held by the Minister.

"Because the Minister of Justice holds his consultations here with the USSR with the Civil Service Commissioner and held meetings and discusses the appointment very seriously, there is no problem in Minister Ohana's decision. He is allowed to appoint a Deputy State Attorney for this period and I do not think there is any real cause for intervention by the High Court and if such a petition is filed it is in my opinion rejected. "

"Any decision not taken will drag the court to the political arena"

Prof. Aviad HaCohen, president of the Gates Academic Center for Constitutional Law and Expert in Constitutional Law, agreed that the authority for appointment was vested in the minister, but due to the close relationship between the USSR and the state's attorney, Mandelblit's position should have been more weighted. Given the minister, however, given the nature of the role and the fact that, "the day after," the State Attorney works closely with the US Attorney, there is great weight to his position and ability to work in full cooperation with the State Attorney, "he explained.

Regarding the approval process, Cohen explained that "there was a defect in the procedure itself - such as the non-compliance obligation as requested - it may be to invalidate the decision, but assuming the process was valid, administrative judgment and the reasonableness of the outcome must be considered.

"As for the discretion, those seeking to invalidate the decision will have to prove that the minister did not weigh all the appropriate considerations or that foreign considerations made his decision and weight made the scales. In general, Getz refuses to intervene in discretion in general and in particular in matters of appointment and he intervenes as to reasonableness. The appointment is very narrow here, too. The court does not name itself "in the shoes of the minister" but examines whether the outcome to which the minister - even if another minister chooses another candidate - reveals "extreme unreasonableness at the root of the matter"

"Because" reasonableness "is a rather vague concept, it is difficult to assess how the High Court would decide and this will be developed," Cohen continued. "In any case, it is clear that in this case the decision is not just a normal judicial decision but a formidable battle between various authorities for their status. It is a pity that such an important issue for all of us has become a political and legal arena that overshadows the importance of the role, vainly injures the name and dignity of worthy candidates and diverts the focus of the matter from the main point of view. If, as expected, the matter comes to court, any decision that is not made will help the attempt to drag his court into the political arena and undermine public confidence, and in such circumstances the court will do well if it avoids a decision until after the elections. As one judge said many years ago: A petitioner may place a mine at the door of the court, but the court must not step on it and deserve it. "

"Like appointing a champion contrary to the chief of staff's opinion"

Tel Aviv District Court Vice President Professor Oded Modric, who is currently a professor at the University of Ariel, was the strongest critic of Ohana's decision, but even he believed the Supreme Court would not interfere in the decision. "The minister has the ability to decide on the matter of acting state attorney, but when there are several candidates who all have the same experience, and the president comes and says one of them is important to him to keep the system free of noise and storms, it can be said that the minister should not accept another candidate. It is as if the commissioner does not recommend a minister to the commissioner, and yet the minister will force the commissioner on the commissioner. It is also like appointing a champion contrary to the chief of staff's discretion. Doing nothing like this, it gives rise to background noise in the system, especially here that the Acting Attorney will now be in charge of senior officials, especially when it is just filling a seat.

"I do not understand what the Minister has seen to intervene here and on another issue in which the Attorney General has a good explanation and reasoning. The Minister was wrong in the choice he chose for himself. After all, the minister has consulted with the Judea and Samaria Commissioner, the minister has also examined some candidates and all are worthy, it is not that the appointed officer is now a poor factor, so it is difficult to estimate that the High Court will intervene in such appointment. But it is not understandable why it was burning for Minister Ohana to decide on a fight in the Judea and Samaria, this is a temporary appointment anyway, a role that works hand in hand with the Judea and Samaria and not a permanent appointment. It is not about such issues waging battles, ”Modric claimed.