Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar slammed Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara after she informed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Monday evening that his appointment of Maj. Gen. David Zini to the position of Shin Bet chief is “illegal.”

Baharav-Miara claims that Netanyahu is not legally permitted to appoint the next Shin Bet chief due to a “conflict of interest” due to the Qatargate case and ordered him to refrain from any “direct or indirect” involvement in appointing the next Shin Bet chief or even an interim replacement.

Her “ruling” was made despite the fact that Netanyahu is not a suspect in the Qatargate case and the Shin Bet Law specifically stipulates that the Prime Minister be involved in the appointment of the Shin Bet chief.  Additionally, Netanyahu has already announced that out of an abundance of caution, Zini will not be involved in the Qatargate investigation.

Baharav-Miara even went so far as to say that even if a government minister appoints a Shin Bet chief instead of Netanyahu, “there is serious doubt” whether Zini can be appointed.

The publication of Baharav-Miara’s “legal opinion” caused a furor among coalition members, with a number of ministers decrying her move as politically tainted and urging her ouster. Deputy Minister Almog Cohen even threatened to leave the government if Netanyahu allows Baharav-Mirara to continue her “silent coup” and thwart Zini’s appointment.

Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar was so perturbed by Baharav-Miara’s “legal opinion” that he wrote a lengthy post on social media slamming her and exposing the obvious flaws in her “legal ruling.”

Sa’ar wrote: “‘Forget it, it’s hopeless,’ one of the senior officials in the Ministry of Justice told me a few months ago.”

“Back then, I was still trying to see if there was a way to bridge the unprecedented divide between the government and its legal advisor. ‘She has decided to go all the way,’ that official added.

“I remembered his words last night when I read the Attorney General’s extreme ‘opinion’ that prohibited any involvement of the Prime Minister in the process of selecting the head of the Shin Bet.

“Unsurprisingly, the ‘opinion’ lacked any discussion of the clauses of the Shin Bet Law itself. For example, Section 3(a) of the law stipulates that ‘the head of the Shin Bet shall be appointed by the government upon the proposal of the Prime Minister.’ Also missing was a discussion of the fundamental meaning of the provision in Section 4(b) of the law, according to which ‘the Prime Minister is in charge of the Service on behalf of the Government.’

“The reason given by Baharav-Miara…is the Prime Minister’s alleged ‘conflict of interest’ due to the ‘Qatargate’ case. This is despite the fact that the Prime Minister is not a suspect in the case.

“The very claim of a conflict of interest due to the investigation of people close to the Prime Minister is far-reaching in itself. In any case, every rookie lawyer knows that it is possible to ‘neutralize’ the alleged conflict of interest with much more proportionate means than disqualifying the Prime Minister’s involvement ‘in any way whatsoever’ in the appointment of the head of the secret security organization, over which he is legally in charge. For example, the Attorney General could have stipulated that the new head of the Shin Bet would not deal with this investigation at all.

‘The proposal to transfer the power of appointment to another minister makes a mockery of the explicit provisions of the law, which Baharav-Miara…ignored.

“In one of the recent cabinet meetings, Minister Avi Dichter, the head of the Shin Bet during the Second Intifada, said that anyone who has not been a Prime Minister or head of the Shin Bet cannot fully understand the intimacy of the professional relationship between the two. Is the Prime Minister, who is in charge of the Shin Bet and responsible for the security situation and the war on terror, unable, for example, to meet with candidates for the position prior to the appointment and ask them about their professional worldview?

“By the way: This is what Baharav-Miara tried to argue at an earlier stage when an interim order was issued (which did not include such a prohibition). However, the court clarified that the order did not include this prohibition.

“Furthermore, regardless of who the minister is who will bring the proposal to the government, her ‘opinion’ already determines in advance that ‘it is doubtful whether it will be possible to appoint Maj.-Gen. Zini to the position.

“What remains of the provisions of the law and the responsibility placed on the Prime Minister in a central security area of activity when basic powers are so casually stripped by someone who is supposed to give him legal advice?

“The Attorney General said yesterday at a public conference that recently ‘the regime change has greatly accelerated’ and that there has been a ‘central weakening of the elected institutions.’

“Like a broken clock that tells the right time twice a day – in this statement, the Attorney General was actually right. The activity of the government’s legal advice to weaken the democratic institutions – the Knesset and the government – has accelerated greatly. It is unprecedented.

“The Knesset was elected by the people. The government serves by virtue of the Knesset’s trust. Continuing to weaken them turns Israel into a caricature of a democratic regime. An Attorney General who works consistently and openly to paralyze the government’s ability to function and to overthrow it does not serve as a legal advisor. She has long deserved another honorable title for her actual position: Chairman of the Opposition.”

(YWN Israel Desk – Jerusalem)