IMRA Weekly Commentary..
02 March '19..
Link: http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=73466
Years ago, before she was an MK, Shulamit "Shuli" Mualem-Rafaeli lobbied for IDF widows to continue to receive their pensions after remarrying (her own first husband Moshe was killed in the 1997 IDF helicopter disaster).
The proposed change to the rules was supported by all the decision makers who held their positions as a result of the democratic process - including the Minister of Defense.
The proposal was quashed by the legal counsel of the Ministry of Defense at a meeting she attended.
What legal grounds did the legal counsel of the Ministry of Defense cite for quashing the proposal?
He said if was a budget buster.
That's right.
The lawyer serving as legal counsel of the Ministry of Defense couldn't actually cite a legal issue with the proposal.
He just felt that he knew better what was in the public interest than a bunch of decision makers who held their positions as a result of the democratic process - including the Minister of Defense.
This, in a nutshell, is the fierce dispute over the proper role of the so-called "gate keepers".
Does the legal counsel of a given ministry limit his voice to advising if a given proposed action is legal according to the written law or does the legal counsel also serve to block proposed actions that, while legal according to the written law, do not, in the eyes of the legal counsel, serve the public interest?
Ironically, the people screaming "PROTECT DEMOCRACY" are the ones arguing that the "gate keepers" should have the final say on what serves the public interest. That somehow it is not "democratic" for the political process to serve as the expression of the public interest.
We have a similar phenomena in our court system where rulings are made on whether something is "reasonable" rather than if it is or isn't in accordance with the applicable written law.
Also in this instance the people screaming "PROTECT DEMOCRACY" are the ones arguing that the judges should rule according to what the judges believe serves the public interest rather than according to the written laws enacted by the democratically elected Knesset.
A word about the charges raised against Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. I recommend reading Professor Ran Baratz's article in the 1 March edition of Makor Rishon.
Baratz cites the "tunnel vision" employed in the prosecution of Netanyahu on the basis of action he was associated with that favored someone when Netanyahu was also associated with decisions that caused great financial harm to the same person. This "tunnel vision" considered favorable media
coverage by an internet news service as evidence of a pay-off when that same news service, on average, was unfavorable to Netanyahu.
"Tunnel vision" has Netanyahu lobbying with American officials for a visa for a friend in exchange for cigars while ignoring that the reason his friend had a visa issue in the first place was that he was being punished for helping Israel.
"Tunnel vision" prosecutes Netanyahu for talking with the owner of a major newspaper openly devoted to destroying Netanyahu's political career when the operative conclusion of these conversations was that the paper continued its crusade against the prime minister and Netanyahu went to elections to stop legislation that served the paper's interests.
________________________________________
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis: Since 1992 providing news and analysis on the Middle East with a focus on Arab-Israeli relations
Website: www.imra.org.il
Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment