In a move that might lead to the bombing of an unprecedented constitutional crisis in Israel, Major General David Zaini was the new president of the Shin Bet Security Agency after the government’s legal advisor, Ghali Bahraf Mayra, refused to pass the appointment, considering that he is “illegal” in light of the conflict of interests surrounding Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, given that his direct office is linked to sensitive security investigations led by the agency itself.
The decision to exclude was not surprising to the prominent Israeli political analyst, Nadaf Elay. Or did he deliberately chose this path to launch a direct confrontation with the judicial system, in a move that may start a crisis of appointment, and the end of the collapse of the entire constitutional system?
Set the booby -trap
Eyal believes that Netanyahu, who is fully familiar with being in a state of conflicting interests as a result of current security investigations related to those close to him in the alleged Qatari financing file for his advisers, insisted on pushing the name of Zini to the fore, despite his prior knowledge that this would lead to an inevitable legal objection.
Although the position is vacant since the resignation of the former young president, Ronin Bar, the procedures that were followed to appoint his successor were characterized, according to the analyst, with “failed and suspicious behavior”, starting with an interview with the candidate in a secret place away from the official channels, and the absence of coordination with the Staff and Legal Bodies, to providing the nomination without legal advice preceding the step, a step that could have saved the appointment, if if Another minister in the government, not Netanyahu himself.
The political analyst says: “Netanyahu knows exactly that he cannot lawlessness to nominate a new head of the Shin Bet in light of his office and close associates with sensitive investigations, most notably related to his closest media advisor, Yonatan Ortich, who is the main suspect in a media financing file linked to Qatar.”
But what increases the complexity of the crisis, according to Eye, is that Netanyahu was not satisfied with offering the appointment personally, but rather worked to ensure that the entire government vote in favor of Zeni, which means that the appeal submitted by the legal advisor, is no longer directed only to the Prime Minister but also to the whole government, after he officially stood behind a decision marked by a clear legal defect.
“This is how the whole government stained, and a partner has become overwhelmed, especially since the Supreme Court has previously issued an explicit ruling that is considered the dismissal of the former Shin Bet, illegal, and therefore the appointment of his successor by the same party (Netanyahu) is also canceled.”
3 scenarios in favor of Netanyahu
While political and legal circles are busy analyzing the dimensions of the step, Eyal 3 offers potential hypotheses on Netanyahu’s motives, he sees that none of them, on their contradiction, is in his political interest in the end:
- The first hypothesis says that Netanyahu does not really want to appoint Zeni, and the aim of his name was to fabricate a crisis, and to exploit it as a confrontation tool with the country’s judicial system.
- As for the second hypothesis, you see that he really wants to appoint him, but he realizes that the way for this passes through the bombing of a crisis with the judiciary, in preparation for imposing new facts on the ground.
- The third and most dangerous hypothesis is that Netanyahu deliberately decided to break the rules of the democratic game, and move forward in a path that does not recognize the decisions of the Supreme Court, in an attempt to transform Israel from a state of law into a pure authoritarian regime.
Eyal believes that the third possibility, although it seems “very unlikely”, Netanyahu has paved the way for a long time, and perhaps the day he is already taking.
Israel is between the rule of law and the rule of power
The political analyst describes the confrontation between Netanyahu and the judiciary as not merely legal differences over the past two years, but rather turned into a war of attrition, in essence a battle on the nature of the Israeli political system, between those who seek to devote “the rule of law” and who wants “the rule of power.”
Eyal says that the decisions of the legal advisor to the government are no longer merely legal reservations, but rather are issued in the context of “raising the black flag” in the face of government behavior that threatens the structure of the democratic system itself.
He adds: “The warning of Baharraf Mayara yesterday – that the political system is changing before our eyes, and that democratic institutions are systematically weakened – it was not a slogan … but rather an accurate description of the truth of what we have been experiencing for more than two years.”
In the midst of this crisis, the Supreme Court stands out as a central player in determining the country’s constitutional fate. Either you insist on excluding the appointment, or providing a formula that allows it to be approved, provided that it is passed through sound legal channels.
The political analyst notes that both options carry potential gains for Netanyahu: If the court agreed to appoint Zeni as part of a new legal process, which will be presented by Netanyahu as “a victory against the deep state.” If the Supreme Court refuses to be fully appointed, the decision will be depicted as an attack on the will of the voters, which will increase the popular circumvention around Netanyahu among the right.
As for the third and most dangerous scenario, it is that Netanyahu ignore the court’s decision – if it is issued – and completes his career towards overcoming the judiciary publicly, which will put Israel in an unprecedented legal crisis, between an executive authority that does not recognize the provisions of the judiciary, and legal institutions that no longer have effective implementation tools.
At the end of his article, Ayal’s scars conclude that Israel stands today in front of a decisive constitutional crossroads, titled: Is it still a state of law? Or is it in the process of switching to a “state of one person”, where institutions and decisions are detailed to measure one man … Benjamin Netanyahu.
He says: Whatever the result of this tour, what the Israeli democratic system calls is no longer able to withstand a lot, if the confrontation continues in this pattern, and with this level of insistence on ignoring the laws, institutions and constitutional limits, as he put it.
(Tagstotranslate) News (T) Israel (T) Arabic (T) Palestine