"I am in favor of continuing the selection process of the judges. This selection committee is a successful Israeli work, in which there is cooperation between four authorities. I have sat on the committee. These were the words of the former Supreme Court Vice President, retired Justice Elyakim Rubinstein, in an interview he gave to Israel today less than two years ago.

The same "successful Israeli creation", the Judiciary Committee, along with its "successful" sisters - the Secret Two Committee and the Detention Committees for the lower court presidents - are now fully miserable, with the information from the cellular devices of the Bar Association chairman, Afi Naveh , Leaking tippin to the media.

It is worth mentioning that the same successful work, the Judiciary Committee, has nine members. Four members of the public (two ministers and two MKs), two representatives of the Bar and three Supreme Judges. This composition leaves the public elected by a minority, and the discussions about the candidates are held in secrecy that would not disgrace the Committee on Atomic Energy. However, politics is in the nature of man, and anyone who wants to neutralize legitimate political considerations and hides himself behind the pure cloak of professional considerations receives the illegitimate considerations and even corruption.

But what about the professionalism, you ask, are we interested in judges appointed on the basis of a party and political key? The answer is: Of course it is. If we had a court that regulates itself from political and value matters, humbly acts against the law and the legislature, accepts the values ​​and policies set by elected officials and works to implement them according to the written law, professional and neutral judgment could be spoken of. In the same hypothetical scenario it is clear that the sociological diversity of the Court and the political positions of its judges are important, but the democratic deprivation was not so jarring.

But at least this week, there should be no doubt that the method of appointing judges in Israel went bankrupt. The first reason is that there will be a hearing in the High Court tomorrow on whether Netanyahu may form a government based on unwritten values ​​and vague principles. The High Court will also soon discuss the validity of the Nationality Law, which is a Basic Law. When the Court deals with political and ethical questions, there is no justification for a "professional" appointment method, which is actually a cover for the exclusion of the public from the most important and important decisions.

The second reason is that the Epic Nave affair reminds us that where no disintegrating sunlight comes, malignant crops of rot, corruption and perhaps even bribery are growing. Indeed, a transparent, public political process, conducted by a committee in the Knesset and broadcast to the public and the world, is a guarantee of legitimate and legitimate considerations.

A study published by the Movement for Governments shows that judges in the courts discussing constitutional matters are appointed by elected officials, with the understanding that policy considerations in selecting judges are a proper, legitimate and essential thing. We should focus on Israeli inventive skills in startups and technology. In the field of democracy and public participation, it will not hurt to learn from the experience of the world's oldest and most powerful democracies.

Adv. Simcha Rutman is the Attorney General of the Movement for Governments; his book "The High Court Party - How the Attorneys Conquered Government in Israel" has been published these days