Think of the late attorney Yitzhak Tunik. Think of Joshua Rottenstreich, David Libai, Amnon Goldenberg. These were great jurists, who also served in high public positions such as State Comptroller, Minister of Justice or President of the Press Council. These distinguished individuals were succeeded by low-profile jurists who helped Supreme Court justices on the Judicial Selection Commission force their favorites to serve on the Supreme Court. An oligarchic leadership that chooses itself as acceptable in an undemocratic regime.
Indeed, since talk of the reform began, there has been agreement on at least one issue between opponents of the reform and its supporters: the Bar Association should not be in business. In fact, the only tangible result of the tumultuous turmoil that has gripped the country is that Efi Naveh and his opponents at the bar remain relevant to the future of the country. The Bar Association has become something not much different from the Histadrut or the Teachers Union or the Coop Council and the Dairy Council. In all these cases, historical distortions remain, which give sectoral entities with an enormous interest in determining reality in the economy or in the education system.
Efi Naveh voted in the elections for head of the Israel Bar Association // Moshe Ben-Simhon
But the Judicial Selection Committee deals with slightly more crucial and ethical issues through personal choices. Much has already been written about this: Is it conceivable that the corrupt bureau that introduced us to Avi Himi and Effi Naveh, when Amit Bachar is a representative of radical political organizations and one of the organizers of the riots, would have the same weight as the Knesset itself? This is indeed ridiculous and unreasonable, speaking of the grounds of reasonableness.
A process of delegitimization
Bar elections have important internal and professional significance. But who is interested in this. What's interesting about this election – and that's why the public looks to the pool of lawyers in Israel – is that from there two representatives will go to the Judicial Selection Committee. At this stage, precisely because of the matter of this representation, the Bar Association underwent an accelerated process of discreditation. Whatever the outcome, it will be a blow to the committee. The public will lose faith in her. If Attorney Naveh is elected to head the bureau, the left and opponents of the reform will lose confidence and tear him apart, and once again we will see petitions and cries about "reasonableness." And if it's Behar, the arguments against him will be that he's a political representative elected to bolster the rampant activism on the Supreme Court.
Ballots for voting in the Bar Association elections, photo: Yossi Zeliger
And right-wing voters are saying: We have to put an end to this. The coalition has 64 fingers, do something with it. There are various variations for changing the composition of the commission. The opposition has no logical arguments against the initiative to change the composition of the committee. All they want is to keep the Supreme Court as a bastion from which they can fulfill the prophecy: "Why do you vote right and get left?"
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us