In the video: The spokeswoman reacts for the first time to the storm about the appointment of the Chief of Staff: "The decision will be made without foreign influences" (Niv Aharonson)
The coming days will be full of black surprises.
It has now become clear to us that the Likud, the future ruling party, is demanding that the new government's basic guidelines include the reform of the legal advisors in the government ministries, or in less washed-out words - the transformation of the legal advisors in the government ministries from gatekeepers to the legal eunuchs of the minister and CEO. As
eight Prof. Yaakov is loyal to the minister Justice in the second Netanyahu government in 2009, he explained to anyone who would listen his agenda regarding legal advice for the government in general and legal advice for a government ministry in particular. Just like in private practice, Neman explained, "The role of a legal advisor is not to tell those he serves: why It's impossible, but to explain to him how it is possible" - Naaman's motto was "how it is", instead of "why not".
Naman then came to the position, for the second time, from the private law firm he headed, and he believed that there is no fundamental difference between a legal adviser of a private corporation and a legal adviser of a government office.
Apparently there was logic in his words, and there was also justice in the claim that legal advisers of government ministries can dissuade ministers and CEOs, if all those ombudsmen do is turn a blind eye and shake their heads in the negative, without making a minimal effort to use their legal knowledge to find routes Bypassing legal hurdles.
In the minister's zeal to promote his agendas, there should be a gatekeeper to say if he is acting legally.
Eli Cohen, Yariv Levin and Miri Regev (Photo: Reuven Castro)
But there was a fallacy in the same comparison that Naman made between the private corporation and the government office, a fallacy that was summed up in the simple question: who is the boss.
In a private corporation, it is clear that the boss is the one who pays the salary to the legal advisor.
Who are the shareholders who pay the legal advisor of a government office?
Well, it's certainly not the CEO of that office, nor his minister. The shareholders are us, the taxpayers. It's true that politicians also receive their salaries from the same shareholders, the taxpayers, but it's clear that no citizen pays them to break the law , but on the contrary, the payment is made based on the assumption that the politicians will uphold the law.
The Israeli system, admittedly, is quite different from most Western countries, is that a legal advisor of a government office is administratively subordinate to his office, but professionally subordinate to the attorney general, and he cannot be transferred from his position without approval Attorney General The idea is simple: in the minister's zeal to promote the agendas he believes in, there needs to be a gatekeeper by his side who will tell him if the move was done legally and within the law.
More in Walla!
Benefits for veterans and legal reforms: these are Likud's demands in the coalition negotiations
To the full article
The "shareholders" who pay the ombudsman are us - the public. The ombudsman is Harav Miara (Photo: Roni Kanfo)
In the previous Netanyahu government, for example, the finance minister at the time, Israel Katz, wanted to distribute money to citizens.
It was both a Corona period and an election period.
Katz was then furious with his office's legal advisor, Asi Messing, for doing his duty and presenting both him, the minister, the officials of the office, and the attorney general with the legal difficulty in implementing the plan, which allegedly can be seen as election bribery.
If it were up to Katz, he would have fired Messing in a second.
Why would it hinder him from realizing his plans?
But Messing, according to the existing law in Israel, is subordinate to the Attorney General.
Avichai Mandelblit, then the advisor, backed Messing up in this high-profile war.
Here is the gist of the dilemma: Messing is simply a Civil Servant.
In his view, he thought he had to uphold the law for the sake of the public he employed.
Katz (perhaps because he really believes he is Herod, as he once said about himself), believed that he, Messing, should serve him first and foremost.
Both Ayelet Shaked and Amir Ohana tried to pass the attempt to change the law so that legal advisors are fully subordinated to the political level, to date without success.
Above this agenda hovers the magic word: "governance".
When opinion leaders and jurists who support this agenda are asked, for example from the "Ecclesiastical Forum", to demonstrate exactly where the great public interest has been harmed by legal advisors (unjustly)?
What tremendous reforms were not made as a result of the comments of these troublemakers?
They always repeat the same unconvincing examples.
One of them is the high-speed train project to Jerusalem, which has been delayed due to the crossing of the Green Line.
According to Ertilaya claims, it was the legal advisers who delayed the progress.
The truth is different and quite simple and natural: the owners of the expropriated land petitioned the High Court; that is, there was a legal hearing anyway. What exactly were the legal advisors supposed to do? Tweet about the procedure at the High Court (which ultimately approved the plan)?
Lawyers of a private corporation probably wouldn't do that either.
He believed that there is no difference between the ombudsman of a private corporation and that of a government ministry. Yaakov Naaman (Photo: Reuven Castro)
On the other hand, there are many examples of legal advisors standing up to illegal, or doubtless legal, acts of ministers and CEOs. We mentioned the example of Messing, but what better illustrates this story than Case 4000? A new CEO is coming to the Ministry of Communications and wants to promote the minister's agenda.
So far so good.
But then several senior officials, including the legal advisor of that office, Dana Neufeld, recognize strange behavior - which she sees as a clear bias of the CEO in favor of the Bezeq company controlled by Shaul Elovich.
So in such a situation, to whom should Neufeld's loyalty be given? To Shlomo Filber? To Netanyahu? To Alovich? Or maybe maybe, just by mistake, to the law? Later on, Neufeld will be branded as an enemy of Netanyahu and the Likud, she will be slandered and instigate a network, she will be threatened. This is what will happen to those who prefer the law to the political boss. At least she kept her livelihood, this is because according to The only law that can remove her from her position is the attorney general, and Likud is now asking to take away this power as well.
The comparisons to other countries in the West are misleading
To strengthen their claim, the supporters of the politicization of legal advice bring the countries of the Western world.
Indeed, in most cases the legal advisors of the ministries are subordinate both administratively and professionally to the managements and ministers.
We have already learned that these comparisons are misleading, since in some countries the balances are given by external audit bodies that have sharper teeth and powers than in Israel;
Therefore, the reduction of the issue only to legal advice distorts the understanding of reality.
But let's start from the assumption that there are not good enough balances in the United States, Canada, Great Britain, etc.
Where did the claim come from that everything that happens there is necessarily truer from here?
There, for example, civil cases are also decided by juries.
Would you be interested in this happening with us?
I do not.
Name state attorney elected in political elections?
is that good?
I think it's atrocious.
And yes, a president is the one who chooses Supreme Court judges (who have to go through the Senate's approval), and these vacate their place only when they leave the world.
It is good?
This seems like a very bad method to me.
In their arguments, the Israeli conservatives like to say: "In the United States, not exactly a smaller democracy than ours, they do this and that...".
And I ask: Does this principle always hold?
Because in the United States, not exactly a small democracy than ours, there is a separation of religion and state and civil marriage, so do you want it here too?
The United States also has a constitution.
Want here too?
I wish the issue of legal advice in the offices was discussed in a matter-of-fact manner and for the benefit of the public.
Netanyahu (photo: official website, Likud spokesperson)
I don't give a damn about some of the arguments: indeed, legal advisors shouldn't be lazy refusers, and as Naman said: they should definitely also think about how to, and not just what not.
But legal advisors should first and foremost serve the law, not the minister's political interests.
I wish the issue of legal advice in the offices was discussed in a matter-of-fact manner and for the benefit of the public.
In practice, the intention to castrate the legal advisors is only a small part of the disruptive revolution that is planned this winter on the rule of law in Israel.
news
opinions and interpretations
Tags
Attorney General
Likud
