Likud warned that any resolution that cancels that of the deputy prime minister would destroy the entire coalition agreement and lead Israel to new national elections. Polls have shown that Likud is wasting the floor on the far right Yamina and centrist Yesh Atid, taking a new vote. less appropriate for the party.
Likud and Kakhol lavan have in the past told the court that the new workplace is a central detail of the coalition agreement, asking the court to approve all its clauses; however, Gantz said Tuesday that he would settle and respect any court ruling in the matter.
During the discussion, Hayut noted that the High Court had never repealed a basic law or amendment to that law, and stated that there was a wonderful question as to whether the court was legal to do so.
Eliad Shraga, leader of the Movement for a Quality Government in Israel, argued at the hearing that the law creating the new one is a “constitutional terrorist megaattack,” creates a “monarchical mafia, and undermines all progress toward a constitution.
“This is a political criticism, a legal argument,” Hayut chimed in at one point.
Shraga echoed his group’s previous comments that Netanyahu “seeks to create a new constitutional regime to protect him against criminal charges” and Gantz will “replace short-term political considerations arising from Netanyahu’s lack of confidence. “
He argued that the legislative procedure hastily and misreached for such a basic replacement, and that the replacement itself is undemocratic and may not be noticed in any other country.
Lawyer Yonatan Berman, representing Meretz, argued that Likud and Kakhol lavan had made legislative adjustments on hidden grounds and that fundamental legislation was misused to “create a shelter for a accused offender. “
Berman said the replacement was made after the election and argued that the votes would have been others if the replacement had been implemented before the election, meaning the law had replaced the regulations after the fact. The judges responded by asking what the election might have been. elections that do not lead to the creation of a government.
The third petitioner, Avigdor Feldman, argued that the new power-sharing mechanism deserves only for the next Knesset, not the existing one, as it represents a replacement in the game’s regulations before it ends. The judges responded that other adjustments such as the accumulation in the maximum number of ministers has been made in the afterlife after the elections and before the formation of the government.
Feldman said the replenishment was more excessive than the previous ones, suggesting that the power-sharing government be allowed to remain in office while nullifies the clauses that create the post of deputy prime minister.
Lawyer Yuval Yoaz, in Feldman’s petition, focused on his arguments opposed to the exemption from the post of deputy prime minister in a 1990s court ruling setting out that criminal defendants cannot be ministers. and does not refer to an accused Prime Minister (Yoaz collaborates with ToI Zman Yisrael’s sister as a legal analyst).
The Likud and Netanyahu representatives, Michael Rabilo and Avi Halevy, objected to the court’s right to interfere in any basic law and stated that since the courts themselves function on the basis of a basic law, they accept the petitioners’ arguments. It would be detrimental and lead Israel’s speedy path to anarchy, as Rabilo put it. Hayut responded by asking if this would remain true even if a basic law was passed that absolutely nullified the Knesset elections.
Halevy argued that even the powerful adjustments that remain in the box of democracy were appropriate and required judicial intervention, giving the example of two chambers of representatives or forming a new court ideal for constitutional issues. Judge Melcer defied the last example, saying it amounted to forming two governments and telling Halevy to “focus his arguments on the legislature and the executive government, on the judiciary. “
Avital Sompolinsky, a lawyer representing the Knesset, stated that the law was not ideal and that it arose from necessity due to the political crisis, but argued that petitioners had not crossed any of the legal thresholds established through judges in similar petitions in the past. Mandatory to justify judicial intervention in this area.
Aner Helman of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic said that replacement in law is not a post-fact replacement in the electoral regulations because it has nothing to do with election results, but affects the government’s post-election training procedure. The judges rejected the argument, saying that government training is included in the electoral procedure.
In the past, the court had rejected petitions opposing the law and other measures created through the power-sharing government between Gantz and Netanyahu, saying it might not rule until the legislation was passed and enacted.
Earlier this year, the cabinet officially created the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and five new offices, and approved tax reforms that would cut the budgets of the maximum departments to finance their creation, in a series of questionable adjustments to Israel’s basic laws.
The law gave Gantz a security procession to Netanyahu’s because of his new role, with new security arrangements costing 23 million shekels ($6. 6 million) a year, the Twelfth Channel reported in June.
Does the Times of Israel give you a valuable view of Israel and the Jewish world?If so, sign up for the Times of Israel community. For as little as $6 a month, you:
That’s why we come to paint every day, to offer intelligent readers like you a must-see policy of Israel and the Jewish world.
So now we have a request. Unlike other means, we have not placed a wall of payments, but because the journalism we do is costly, we invite readers for whom the Times of Israel has become vital to assist in our paintings by joining the Times of Israel community.
For as little as $6 a month, you can help our quality journalism while enjoying the Times of Israel WITHOUT ADS, as well as access exclusive content for members of the Times of Israel community.