Israel’s High Court on Sunday morning rejected the petitions filed by left-wing organizations against the appointment of David Zini as head of the Shin Bet, after two out of three judges on the panel ruled that there is no ground for judicial intervention in the government’s decision.

The opinion of Justice Yitzchak Amit, who sought to issue an injunction order against Zini—who entered his position at the beginning of October—was rejected. The petitioners were ordered to pay legal costs in the amount of 70,000 shekels.

Justice Sohlberg sharply criticized the petition and its arguments, writing in the ruling, “The case before us is unprecedented in its absurdity. Not only did the petitioners base their claims on a slew of newspaper articles (mainly from Haaretz) but they did so even regarding issues on which the ‘sources’ themselves were given a full opportunity to speak as part of the appointment process and said things that are completely contrary to those media reports.”

“For example, the petitioners raise arguments that Zini concealed information from the Chief of Staff, as well as regarding the circumstances of the end of his military service. Indeed, disturbing reports on the matter were published in the media—for some of the petitioners, that was enough to label Zini, repeatedly, with the title ‘liar’ and other insults. But what then? The Chief of Staff appeared before the committee and, in his remarks—which the committee accepted—presented a completely different version of those events, according to which both Zini’s conduct around the appointment and the circumstances of the end of his service were entirely proper.”

“Do the petitioners truly believe that the Chief of Staff himself also deserves that same label, which they so generously ‘distributed’ to Zini? Is there any justification to assume that the Chief of Staff did not tell the truth when he appeared before the advisory committee?”

Sohlberg also wrote that no substantial evidentiary foundation had been presented indicating a flaw in Zini’s competence for the role or in his integrity. He noted that under established case law, the Court is required to exercise special restraint when it comes to intervening in senior government appointments, “all the more so when the appointment was examined by the advisory committee, which has special expertise in examining these aspects.”

By contrast, Justice Amit’s dissenting opinion stated that “the appointment decision, in the format in which it was made, raises a difficulty that justifies the issuance of an injunction order.” Amit claimed that the advisory committee was required to also examine the “ethical” conduct behind Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s appointment of Zini.

Justice David Mintz, who joined the majority opinion, rejected Amit’s opinion and clarified that there is no place to disqualify a candidate because of his religious or Zionist worldview. He noted that the claims in this regard were based on “unsubstantiated gossip.”

In conclusion, by a majority opinion, the Court determined that there is no ground for intervening in the government’s decision, and David Zini’s appointment as head of the Shin Bet remains in effect.

(YWN Israel Desk—Jerusalem)