Improper Mezuzah: The judgment seat does not make people more valuable

Someone who has been caught in lies time and time again cannot head a committee that checks the moral purity of senior civil service officials.

And in general, it's time to stop appointing judges to chair public committees

Kalman Libeskind

20/08/2022

Saturday, August 20, 2022, 8:56 p.m. Updated: 9:15 p.m.

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on Twitter

• Share by email

• Share in general

• Comments

  Comments

Not more valuable.

Mazuz (Photo: Flash 90, Yonatan Zindel)

Put aside for a moment the question of whether it was really urgent to appoint Manny Mazuz as the chairman of the committee for the appointment of senior officials, just before elections, for an eight-year term, instead of waiting for the next government to appoint whoever it wants.

Before this question there is an even more important question: why did he decide Who decided to appoint a judge to this position? Well, one can think of several answers to this question. One, whoever served on the Supreme Court, believes that he is a smart and educated man, and these are certainly characteristics that are important to us for someone who heads a committee that checks the moral purity of our seniors.

In addition, it must be assumed that those who prefer to appoint retired judges to such committees are starting from the assumption that these are people with a high decency coefficient. Are all judges necessarily decent people? Probably not. Are they necessarily more decent than the CEO of Bank Leumi or the head of the horticulture organization?

also not.

So what is it about them, the judges, that would make anyone think they are better suited to preside over these important committees than other mortals?

It is better to appoint someone with a high decency factor.

Mazuz (Photo: Omer Miron)

Well, here we come to the main point.

Those who serve in the judicial system usually maintain an objective and balanced appearance.

It is true that for some of them it is not very difficult to know where they are on the political spectrum, and still, since they make an effort not to enter into the cauldron and not to express themselves outside of their judgments on controversial issues, it is easier for us to regard them as those who came to the task without preconceived opinions.

Yes, it is clear that they have such opinions, as we all do, but the more careful they are to keep them to themselves while sitting on the court, the easier it is for us to look at them as judges even when they are already out of the system, and even when they are not involved in judging, but in senior appointments.

And why was all this introduction important?

To say that as far as Mani Mezuz is concerned, none of this is true.

Not necessarily because it was easy for us to place Manny Mazuz on the left end of the political scale already when he was a judge, but mainly because of what he chose to do after his retirement.

Eight months ago Mazuz gave a long interview to Gidi Weitz in "Haaretz", pouring into his ears everything he thinks about everything at the heart of our political controversy in recent years.

Mazoz spoke about the last few years under Netanyahu's rule, regarding which he thought that "we are in real danger to all rule of law systems in the country", and explained that in his view, what happened here "was intended entirely to crush the legal institutions for known reasons".

Regarding one of the speeches of the former minister, Dodi Amsalem, he said that it was "just another extreme expression of the 'destroy everything' mentality", that "it is clear that when law enforcement institutions are crushed, it creates a tangible danger of the collapse of the entire Israeli democracy", and that "it was here A continuous attempt to crush the police, the prosecutor's office, the attorney general and the courts."

He, to Mazuz, had a clear answer to the question of who is responsible for all this evil: former Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Regarding the photo of Netanyahu in court, with his Likud friends around him, Mazoz said that "it was a scary scene from a fictional movie."

Regarding some of Netanyahu's claims against the system, Mazuz said that they are cynical, dangerous and irresponsible.

Now, put aside the question of whether Mazuz is right or wrong.

This question is not relevant here.

What is relevant is that from the moment Mezuz took off his judge's robe, and chose to launch such a sharp criticism of such a central player in the political system, one who according to the polls has a reasonable chance of returning to the position of prime minister in a short time - he can no longer enjoy the privilege of being treated as "judge".

Regardless of the question of whether he is right in his criticism or not, it should be clear that from the moment he decided to jump into the political puddle, express himself on such controversial matters and send his half in a press interview towards the one who heads a large and broad political camp, the appearance of the objective, balanced, lacking judge Referrals - in fact, the only advantage a judge has over anyone else - no longer exists with him.

And from this place, if you can choose Manny Mazuz, you can also choose Secretary General Shalom Now or the CEO of the Yesha Council. Both can be wise people like Mazuz. Both can be decent people like Mazuz. Both externalize their political positions like Mazuz.

good to know (in advance)

The swimming method that will change your life (and make you fit)

Served on behalf of TI SWIM

in the name of the daughter

And here we come to the most outrageous point.

Mazuz was appointed to this position, not because he is better suited to it than others in terms of his integrity, values ​​or morality.

These were not tested at all.

Mazuz became the chairman of the Committee for Senior Appointments this week, only because he is a retired judge. That's it.

If someone were to consider the purity of Mazuz's character, before it starts checking the character of the appointed Commissioner, or the designated Chief of Staff, or a bank governor The designated Israel would have easily discovered that there is a serious problem here. Meni Mazuz is not suitable for this position, because he has been caught lying more than once, and in any weather a person who lies cannot head a committee that examines the purity of someone's morals.

Here's one example we've covered here before.

This happened during Mazuz's involvement in the petition of the organization "Ko Le Oved", which demanded to regulate the handling of the prevention and enforcement of work accidents.

Formally, this petition was filed against the police, the Ministry of Internal Security, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Labor.

Essentially, a large part of it revolves around the operation of the safety administration in the labor branch of the Ministry of Labor, the body entrusted with the supervision of the construction sites, the investigation and investigation of work accidents and the prosecution of employers who violated the safety laws at work.

Yael Mazuz-Harpaz, the daughter of Mani Mazuz, served when the petition was submitted and also during its discussion, as the chief of staff of the supervisor of the labor branch, the one whose petition attacked the safety administration under whose responsibility.

To understand how dominant she was in the field in which the petition dealt, it was enough to see the article published by her boss in the days when the petition was discussed, an article that dealt with the fight against accidents in the construction industry, and which ended with thanks "on a personal note" to everyone who works for the safety of the workers, with the only one mentioned by name being " My chief of staff, Yael Mazuz-Harpaz."

One of the documents on which the judges relied, when they brought about the deletion of the petition, was a document of agreements signed between the boss of the judge's daughter and the Ministry of Finance.

Leave it to the fact that Meni Mazuz did not think it appropriate for him to disqualify himself from discussing this petition, and he did not even think it was appropriate to give a proper disclosure before the beginning of the discussion, so that the parties would know that his daughter is employed in a senior position in the body that the petition deals with.

Suppose he forgot, that he got confused, that he didn't notice.

I was then much more bothered that Mezuz lied in response to the questions I directed to him.

She called on Bennett to veto the appointment.

Shaked (Photo: Reuven Castro)

The petition was not at all focused on my daughter's workplace, he explained to me.

"The petition was filed against the Israel Police, the Ministry of Internal Security, the Ministry of Labor, Welfare and the Ministry of Finance, and the main remedy sought in it was the establishment of a national police unit to investigate work accidents in the construction industry... The petition did not deal with the issue handled by my daughter, Yael Mazuz-Harpaz, and it Nor did she mention the petition or its appendices...".

And why do I determine that Mazuz lied in his answer?

Because the petitioners from "Ko LeOved" requested ten different remedies in their petition.

One dealt with the police, one dealt with the police and the safety administration, where the daughter's daughter is employed, both together.

The other eight remedies dealt with the safety administration where she works, and only with it.

The Safety Administration appears 121 times in the 30 pages of the petition of "Ko LeOved", more than any other body.

Furthermore, the reading of the petition revealed that, contrary to Mazuz's claim, the petitioners from "Ko LeOved" drafted a harsh, detailed, and full of examples indictment against the Safety Administration.

There is no way to read the petition and understand otherwise.

"The aforementioned duties of the Safety Administration are not fulfilled in reality," they wrote.

Under these circumstances, Judge Mazuz's claim that "the main remedy requested in the petition was the establishment of a national police unit to investigate work accidents in the construction industry", meaning something unrelated to the Safety Administration in the labor branch - It's that his daughter serves in a senior position - she didn't really have even the slightest touch. Now explain to me how it is that in order to appoint a commissioner or chief of staff they have to be passed by a committee that will check and determine that they are of pure character, and in order to head this committee - there is no need to check anything about you ?

Ridiculous explanation

Well, say, we are all human.

Who among us hasn't been told a little lie at some point?

But that's the thing, for Mazuz it wasn't the only event.

In November 2019, Mazuz appeared at an event held at the University of Haifa, and answered questions from the audience.

Amir Ohana served as the Minister of Justice at the time, and one of the questions referred to the problem of "the public's trust in the justice system, when the justice system does not believe in itself, to the extent that there is even a minister who throws catapults at the justice system."

"How do you think", asked the questioner, "to react to such an absurd situation, where the system attacks itself as if it were some autoimmune disease?".

"The situation of the minister of justice compared to me, and in general a minister compared to me, is a problematic, disturbing, annoying situation," answered Judge Mazuz, and later added: "It is a situation that the legal system did not choose, it cannot affect the identity of the minister, and it should not affect the identity of Minister, but of course this makes it difficult for her to function."

It was perfectly clear to anyone who heard this dialogue that Mazuz was talking about Ohana.

There was no other option.

This is exactly what the reporters in the hall reported.

This was reported by Chen Manit, the journalist who interviewed Mazuz on stage.

It could be remarked that Mazuz violated the rules of ethics for judges here, which state that "a judge shall refrain from publicly expressing a position on a matter that is not primarily legal, and which is subject to public controversy", but that is the least important thing.

What is more important is the mask of lies that came later, to cover it up.

Legal Adviser to the Government.

Beharev-Miara (Photo: Reuven Castro)

Five months later, when a petition against Minister Ohana's decision to extend the term of office of the Acting State Attorney was sent to Mazuz, Ohana turned to him and asked him to disqualify himself, partly in light of his personal statement against him, according to which he is "a minister against me".

Mazuz hastened to reject the disqualification request, and attached a strange explanation to it.

When I spoke at a conference in Haifa about "Sher vsi", he claimed - I didn't mean Ohana at all.

I said "in general".

He repeated this ridiculous explanation even later, following a complaint filed against him.

"In my answer, I avoided referring specifically to the minister's words and his claims, but responded in general to the phenomenon of 'minister against me', which is not new, with a hypothetical example in reference to the minister of the environment, and with a general statement that a situation of 'minister against me' is a problematic situation that makes the functioning of the ministry difficult. .. The words did not express criticism or a position on a concrete action or decision of the Minister of Justice...".

It was an embarrassing answer in general, and doubly embarrassing when it came from the mouth of a Supreme Court judge.

Mazuz was asked about Ohana, and answered Ohana.

Go watch this segment, and there is not one of you who will understand otherwise.

To be asked about the minister who "throws catapults" in the system, to reply that "the situation of the minister of justice compared to me, and in general the minister compared to me, is a problematic, disturbing, harassing situation", and that "it is a situation that the legal system did not choose, it cannot influence the identity of the minister, And it shouldn't affect the identity of the minister, but it obviously makes it difficult for her to function," and then explain that you were speaking "in general about the phenomenon of a minister versus me" and that the words did not express any criticism of Ohana's concrete action or decision - this is really the bottom of the bottom.

What is the bottom line of all this?

that it is impossible for a judge to be caught in lies time and time again, to continue to enjoy the presumption of cleanliness reserved for judges only, and to be appointed as the person responsible for checking the moral purity of candidates for a senior position,

systemic problem

And there is one more point that needs to be considered.

Gali Beharve-Miara, who approved the appointment of Mazuz to the position even though we are just before an election, only a few months ago submitted Mazuz's name to the search committee as someone who could recommend her for the position of legal advisor to the government.

Against the background of these things, Behreb-Miara could transfer the current handling of Mezuz's case to one of her alters, even if she didn't think she was in a conflict of interest, if only to convey that the issue of cleanliness and appearance are important to her.

She didn't do it.

And that in itself is alarming and amazing.

Because time and time again it turns out that there is a group of senior officials in the legal system, who believe that all these issues - of proper administration, of conflict of interest, of public cleanliness - are a matter that should be carefully considered mainly by others.

Here is a short list of such examples, all by Supreme Court Justices, all addressed here in this column, to understand how deep the pit is.

Mani Mazuz, as we mentioned above, did not think he had a problem handling matters related to the body in which his daughter serves in a senior position.

Esther Hayut did not think she had a problem discussing the affairs of a friend who supports her husband.

Anat Baron didn't think she had a problem discussing the case of those who donate to the institution that her husband manages, and that deals with the memorialization of her son.

Uri Shoham, in his role as the Commissioner of Complaints for the Judges, did not think he had a problem clearing Esther Hayut of the complaints filed against her, after she arranged for him to be appointed to the position, and after at the ceremony of his retirement from the Supreme Court she spoke emotional words, called him "our dear", defined him as "one of the finest judges ", and praised him for being a "heartwarming personality" and "an example and example of a fine and dedicated public servant".

The President of the Supreme Court did not think she had a problem discussing the affairs of a company that supports her husband.

Hayut (photo: official website, bar association communication)

The previous Commissioner for Complaints about Judges, Eliezer Rivlin, did not think he had a problem investigating a complaint against Judge Anat Baron, following her decision to reject lawsuits against the Lottery, while he himself serves as acting chairman of the committee that advises the Lottery.

Jacob Turkel saw no problem sitting at the head The Appointments Committee and discuss the candidacy of the designated Governor of the Bank of Israel, when he himself serves as the Chairman of the Bank of Israel Banknotes, Denominations and Commemorative Coins Committee, and the person responsible for appointing or extending the appointment to this position is the Governor whose matter he is discussing.

Uzi Fogelman, when he was temporarily appointed to the Supreme Court, saw no problem in rejecting a petition that demanded the opening of a criminal investigation against President Dorit Binish's husband, six days before Binish was to promote him to a permanent appointment in the Committee for the Selection of Judges.

As it is easy to see, this is not a specific problem of this or that judge, or a specific story of this or that.

There is a broad, deep problem here, of a very large group of people who are in the highest position in the justice system, and do not see their own hump. And you know what is the saddest thing here?

That any of the members of this group can be appointed chairman of the committee responsible for checking the purity of others' morals, without any entrance test, solely by virtue of his membership in this club.

• news

• opinions and interpretations

Tags

• Manny Mazuz