To the dustbin of history.
The government's decision to return GSS personnel to Corona's patients is a grave mistake. It is not the role of the General Security Service to monitor civilians in isolation. It is no coincidence that the former GSS chief opposed this and the current head of the organization .
It is no coincidence that the High Court discussed the issue in March and restricted the government from using this tool. Nor is it a coincidence that no other country uses it. In addition, it turned out that the monitoring results were very inaccurate, and people received false warnings.
There is a difference between caution and hysteria.
The government must find other ways to ensure the duty of isolation, and throw the idea of enforcement enforced by the GSS in the dustbin of history.
Fear of exploiting public resources
.
The State Comptroller's report, published in 1988, contained a very harsh reference to the phenomenon of political appointments in government companies.
Five years later, the Committee for the Appointment of Senior Appointments in the Public Service was established.
The chairman of the committee from which the ombudsman, and the definition of political appointment were designed by the former ombudsman, Menachem Mazuz (who later became a judge of the Supreme Court): -Political ".
The committee disqualified the former minister, Amir Peretz, Malkhan as chairman of the board of IAI. This was done against the background of the ties between him and the defense minister, Bnei Gantz. Is not a member of any other political framework, and one has to be tirelessly suspicious to expect one or another political factor to serve.The roles he has held in the past equip him more than many other personalities for this position.
The government's decision to reject the committee's recommendation is not straightforward, but the guidelines for the public committee should be amended, even in light of previous decisions.
For a person whose data is appropriate for the position to be disqualified from filling it because of his political connections, there must be a much more decisive reason than an abstract suspicion.
The mere fact that he is a political person cannot suffice.
Who are you anyway?
Back to the GSS localities. Minister Eli Avidar's opposition to the government's decision regarding the GSS localities is justified, but his behavior at the cabinet meeting is unforgivable. He is, of course, allowed to speak out against a resolution brought to a vote, and he is allowed to try to convince his friends that they are making a mistake, but once the decision is made - he bears collective responsibility as long as he does not resign. Instead, he spoke unforgivably to the GSS chief, informing the prime minister who scolded him that he would say what he wanted, like a child rioting in a classroom. Are you at all ?! ", and then the subject dropped from the agenda.
It reminded me of the story of a husband returning home at an unexpected time, and finding his beloved wife in the arms of someone unidentified.
He opens with shouts, until his wife manages to ask him, "Do you know who bought you the red car? Do you know where the winter coat you love so much comes from? Do you know where the new pen you love so much comes from?".
And the embarrassed husband says to her: "Cover him, I still need him to cool down!".
Were we wrong?
Fixed!
If you found an error in the article, we'll be happy for you to share it with us
