Supreme Court President Isaac Amit Under Fire for Remarks to Shin Bet Chief
Translated & summarized from Srugim by baba
Supreme Court President Isaac Amit is facing backlash for telling Shin Bet chief David Zini that it would not be good for him if he insisted on knowing the identities of those petitioning against Amit's appointment. Critics have decried the remarks as "mafioso-like" and a threat.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Supreme Court President Isaac Amit urged Shin Bet chief David Zini to drop his demand for petitioners' identities.
- Amit's remarks were widely condemned on social media as "mafioso-like" and threatening.
- Critics argue Amit's statement lacked legal basis and resembled a gangster's warning.
- The petitioners reportedly fear retaliation from the Shin Bet chief.
- Amit suggested Zini's insistence might not end well for him.
Supreme Court President Isaac Amit has drawn sharp criticism for his remarks to Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) Director David Zini, urging him to retract his demand to reveal the identities of those petitioning against Amit's appointment. Amit stated that Zini would be wise to reconsider his position, suggesting it might not reflect well on him. Reports indicate the petitioners fear retribution from the Shin Bet chief.
Social media users reacted with outrage, labeling Amit's comments as "mafioso-like," "violent," and "lacking statesmanship." Attorney Moshe Cohen described Amit's statement as a "mafioso threat" against Zini, implying that insisting on his legal right to know the petitioners' identities would have negative consequences. Cohen also criticized the perceived leniency shown to others who have allegedly disrespected court rulings, contrasting it with the treatment of former Shin Bet employees.
Further criticism came from attorney Ohad Shalom, representing Zini, who expressed bewilderment at Amit's phrasing. Shalom likened the statement to a warning from a movie gangster, suggesting it had no legal basis and sounded like a threat rather than judicial advice. He noted that while not a direct physical threat, the implication was clear and concerning.
