Government Response To Petition To Stop Dismissal of Ronen Bar

Government Response To Petition To Stop Dismissal of Ronen Bar
Dr. Aaron Lerner 24 March 2024

https://ynet-pic1.yit.co.il/picserver6/wcm_upload_files/2025/03/24/Hyr2wbyT1
l/_____________1___2_________________.pdf is a full copy in Hebrew of the
response of the Government of Israel to the petition to stop the dismissal
of Ronen Bar.

The response includes many strong arguments, including the following
(ChatGPT4 used to translate):

During deliberations of a joint subcommittee of the Knesset Foreign Affairs
and Defense Committee and the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee on the
proposed ISA Law, held on November 26, 2001, the committee discussed this
very issue. On page 34 of the protocol, then-Deputy Attorney General (later
Justice) Meni Mazuz explained the reasoning behind how the term of the ISA
Director was set.

He stated:

“In the previous Knesset, there was debate about the length of service for
the Director. Some MKs raised concerns about the system where a four-year
term could be extended by one year at the discretion of the government. This
could create a situation where the Director becomes beholden to the
appointing authority-whether he behaves ‘well’ or not-depending on whether
his term is extended by a few months or not.

An alternative proposal was submitted to stipulate a five-year term, unless
the government set a shorter term at the time of appointment, and that the
Director’s tenure would continue unless a replacement is appointed within
three months of the term ending-to allow for continuity and overlap. But the
main idea was to establish a fixed term.”

At that point, MK Yuval Steinitz interjected:

“Anyway, the Prime Minister can always fire the Director.”

Mazuz replied:

“Correct. That’s the additional point. We wrote explicitly in the law: ‘The
Director’s tenure may end under the following circumstances.’”

Chairman David Magen added:

“That sounds appropriate-five years and three months.”

Mazuz concluded:

“Instead of listing detailed grounds for termination, we included a general
clause: the government-not the Prime Minister-may terminate the Director’s
tenure before the end of the term. Without needing to cite reasons A, B, or
C. The underlying assumption is that the ISA Director, like several other
key positions, cannot remain in office without the confidence of the
government.”

Steinitz emphasized:

“Sometimes urgency demands action, and therefore the Prime Minister must
have the power to immediately suspend the Director, even before the
government acts formally.”

Mazuz confirmed:

“The government appoints based on the Prime Minister’s recommendation, so
dismissal can also be initiated that way. If necessary, the PM can even
convene an urgent session by phone vote.”

.This discussion is recorded in the committee protocol dated 26/11/2001.

Justice Mazuz’s remarks highlight the logic behind why the law does not list
specific grounds for dismissal. It is based on a clear, democratic
understanding: the ISA Director, due to the importance and sensitivity of
his role, cannot serve without the confidence of the appointing
authority-the government. Therefore, the government may dismiss the ISA
Director even via telephone vote, according to Section 19A of the
Government’s Rules of Procedure.
===

The response concludes with a request that the Honorable Court deny the
petition,
________________________________________
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

Source: https://www.imra.org.il/story.php?id=74328