Those wondering what the world war between Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann and Chief Justice Dorit Beinish is doing to the judicial system will learn something from the following example.
A short while ago the prosecution examined what was happening to lawsuits filed by Arabs from the territories seeking compensation from the State of Israel. It became apparent that the majority of lawsuits were filed in Nazareth. Those filing the suits hoped that Arab judges would be more inclined to rule in their favor.
The attorney general thought that it would be a better idea to concentrate all the lawsuits in one court, if only to prevent them from being filed in Nazareth. He proposed that the justice minister and chief justice jointly decide where the lawsuits would be referred.
The proposal reached the justice minister's office and met with a stubborn refusal: Why on earth the chief justice? By lack of choice the prosecution decided to bypass both the justice minister and the chief justice. Lawsuits from Gaza will be brought before the Beersheba court while those from the West Bank will be filed in the Jerusalem court.
During his time in office Professor Friedmann has made some significant achievements in the selection process of justices and prosecutors, in meliorating the composition of the High Court, and in adding quotas for judges. However, his achievements are dwarfed when compared to the damage the conflict between him and Beinish has caused to the entire judicial system and to the status of the High Court in particular.
This is a personal conflict, accompanied by ugly headlines, fictitious accusations and wild intrigues. It doesn't matter who started it, it doesn't matter who's right - the conflict is destructive to all.
Former Chief Justice Aharon Barak held a three-hour meeting two weeks ago with Ehud Olmert. Barak is friendly with both Beinish and Friedmann. Ostensibly, only Barak is able to moderate the two. He has the authority. He has the power of persuasion, and there is no man more apprehensive of the future status of the High Court than he.
Yet upon his retirement Barak swore that he would sever himself from the court. His intervention in the acts of his successor are likely to be interpreted as an inappropriate act and would end up making matters worse.
To add further embarrassment to this war, four people are involved instead of two. Attorney General Menachem Mazuz is the third. His view of the judicial system is closer to Friedmann's. Dorit Beinish and her loyalists in the prosecution opposed his appointment to the post of attorney general.
Something of the personal tensions between the two arose in the harsh statements made by Beinish against the plea bargain in the Moshe Katsav affair, when she headed the High Court panel on the subject.
Mazuz is also finding it difficult to cooperate with Friedmann. Both Beinish and Friedmann are a bit too erratic for him, at least where the relationship between them is concerned.
The fourth person is Ehud Olmert. When he appointed Friedmann he took into account that a conflict between himself and Beinish would erupt. He is hopeful that the High Court would suffer a blow that would mitigate its powers to some degree vis-à-vis the government. He had no idea how far the conflict would go.
Olmert's rivals are convinced that everything that has transpired resulted from an Olmert conspiracy: Namely, that he is seeking to weaken the High Court so that when matters concerning himself reach the court the judges will be afraid to touch him.
Olmert took advantage of his address at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem's National Security Studies Center on Tuesday to try and remove the stain and at the same time to distance himself from Friedmann's wars.
He went out of his way to praise the courts. "First they are the state's bulletproof vest against the world" and they "guarantee a democratic rule, justice and equality." He didn't forget to note who the state owes all this to: To the High Court headed by Dorit Beinish.
In other times there may have been a chance that such a speech by the prime minister would help cool things down. Not now, and not with the persons in question.
The deluge of investigations surrounding him – the imminent decision whether to indict former finance minister Avraham Hirchson, the questions surrounding the purchase price of Olmert's apartment, and the investment center that are waiting for the completion of investigations and the attorney general's decision, and the Bank Leumi affair – makes any of Olmert's public statements suspicious.
When he levels criticism at the High Court he is under suspicion of trying to destroy it; when he praises the High Court he is suspected of attempted bribery. Olmert will not bring salvation.
RSS
