Opinion Please, my friends, don't make me cry Israel today

The Chairman of the Election Committee, Judge Amit, disqualified Amichai Shikli from the Likud list, thereby determining that he will not be able to run in the elections. The law requires the resignation of an MK "closer" to the announcement of his retirement.

Shikli resigned only after a deliberative agreement was reached in his appeal with the Speaker of the Knesset that his resignation did happen "close by". Following this agreement, Shikli withdrew his appeal which was rejected by consensus.

This is not a sensational event from a legal point of view: this is a paper already plowed by MK Michael Nodelman, who also reached the same agreement in 2006 after he was announced to be withdrawing from the National Union, and he also ran after that on the Kadima list.

However, the fellow judge determined, as mentioned, that Shikli's resignation did not happen "nearby", and therefore it is invalid.

First, if we do oblige every retiring MK to resign immediately after the Knesset committee's decision on his case, we deny him the right to appeal.

After all, even if his appeal is accepted, he has no way to return to the Knesset.

Therefore, it is not possible to follow the path of Judge Amit in this matter, as it leads to an absurdity.

Man's foundation is dust, and mistakes happen.

This is a legal error.

Second, a colleague incidentally also deals with another matter, the question of whether Shikli's original appeal was filed with delay.

This discussion is a deviation from the appropriate framework.

It is none of the chairman of the election committee's business whether an appeal of the affair was filed with delay, but of the court that dealt with Shikli's appeal. Amit is required to decide whether the resignation happened close to the affair, whether or not.

Amit even deals with Shikli's political conduct from the beginning of his term, a subject that is not at all part of the matter under discussion.

These are small examples of the analytical ambiguity underlying the reasoning in the decision.

Thirdly, there is ambiguity regarding the source of the authority of the chairman of the election committee to discuss the disqualification of a candidate on this ground, since the law grants the authority to the committee. It would be appropriate to clarify the source of authority in the decision, and it can be assumed that the matter will be decided by the High Court.

But above all - human rights are talked about a lot, but civil rights tend to be forgotten.

The right to be elected is an explicit right in a fundamental law: the Knesset, and beyond that - it is fundamental in the literal sense.

The very democratic idea rests on freedom and civil sovereignty.

As every law student knows, fundamental rights should not be infringed except by express law, for a proper purpose and in a proportionate manner.

Does the law specifically mandate that Shiki did not resign near his retirement?

No.

And even if there was doubt, Judge Amit himself said in the case of Hiba Yazbek that in light of the right to be elected, any doubt works in favor of the candidate.

And that Yazbek's blood is lighter than Shikli's?

This decision may still be overturned in the High Court, but it is worth dwelling on it, because a legal error was made. This error is not accidental, and is the result of a profound legal trend - the decline of political rights in Israeli democracy. On the eve of political judgment day on November 1, it is appropriate Demand that elected officials answer what they intend to do regarding this trend. Not what they intend to say, what they intend to do.

were we wrong

We will fix it!

If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us