The elections for the head of the Bar Association will be held tomorrow. The spotlight is on two – Amit Bachar and Efi Naveh. Without going into the moral question of whether someone who acted as Naveh did deserved to head the Lawyers' Guild, it is worth examining the list of donors of these two gentlemen. The lists were published last week, and a final report will be released after Election Day.
I will touch on the subject immediately, but even before that it is worth asking whether there is a need for the Bar Association, and what each of the candidates will bring to the position. There is no dispute that the Chamber has come a long way since the first chairman was elected in 1962, Yehoshua Rottenstreich, who was followed by legal lions such as Amnon Goldenberg, David Libai, who also served as Minister of Justice, and Yitzhak Tunik, who also served as State Comptroller, to the point where the last two chairmen resigned due to improper conduct – Efi Nave, who was convicted and is appealing and is now running, and Avi Himi, who intends to fight for his good name.
A trade union is supposed to act for the benefit of the members of the organization, present conditions for admission to the guild, act to pass laws, express opinions on issues on the agenda, and hold conferences to discuss issues dealing with their field of activity. But is it right for the heads of the Bar Association to take an active part in the protest, like Behar, or to express a position in advance in favor of parts of the reform, like Naveh, and in fact announce in advance what their position will be if they are members of the Judicial Selection Committee?
Do they even need to be members of the same committee? It will be said that lawyers know the judges and their judicial temperament better than anyone, and therefore it is imperative that they sit on the committee. On the other hand, everything has become so political and self-interested. The coalition is openly working in favor of Naveh. The opposition is in favor of Behar. The issue has been tarnished.
And how does all this relate to the list of donors? The financial report published by a senior colleague indicates that some of the protest leaders donated very substantial sums to him and up to half a million shekels each. Kobi Richter donated NIS 10,000. Several of the large law firms donated, whether on behalf of the firm or in their first name, substantial sums ranging from NIS 10,000 to NIS 100,2. There are also businessmen who donated hundreds of thousands of shekels to him, and in total more than <> million shekels in donations accumulated in his account. Could it be that these law firms and businessmen don't want to be changed by the rules of the game to which they are so accustomed? God forbid they move their cheese? Otherwise, the huge investment in Amit Bahar's candidacy is unclear. It may simply be acting as their proxy.
The highest donation to Effi Naveh is NIS 150,14, and it was donated by one of the members of his list, attorney Nidal Awarda. According to a publication by "The Hottest Place in Hell," some of the 26 main donors to Naveh have been convicted in the past and made plea bargains or served prison sentences, such as Jackie Ben Zaken, who was convicted of running stocks and donated NIS <>,<> through his company. What does this say about Nave? Maybe it's just that they support reform and want to help him lead changes in the judicial system and the prosecutor's office.
And maybe they all contributed just because they believe in the abilities of Bachar or Naveh. Maybe.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us