Supreme Court President's Remark to Shin Bet Chief Sparks Outrage
Translated & summarized from Now 14 by baba
Supreme Court President Isaac Amit's suggestion to Shin Bet chief David Zini to reconsider his demand for petitioners' identities has sparked widespread online backlash, with critics labeling the remark a "mafia-like threat."
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Supreme Court President Amit advised Shin Bet chief Zini to reconsider his demand for petitioners' identities.
- Amit's statement was interpreted by many as a "mafia-like threat."
- The petitioners, former Shin Bet officials, fear retribution from Zini.
- Zini's side argues it's a litigant's right to know their opponents.
- The court will decide whether to compel the petitioners to reveal their names.
Supreme Court President Isaac Amit has drawn sharp criticism online for his remarks to Shin Bet (General Security Service) chief David Zini during a hearing concerning Zini's demand to reveal the identities of petitioners opposing his appointment. Amit suggested Zini reconsider his demand, stating, "It is not certain that it will do him good."
The controversy arose after Zini requested the court declare the petitioners in contempt for refusing to fully disclose their identities. The petitioners, former Shin Bet officials, cited fears of retribution from Zini. Zini's camp, however, argued that it is a basic right for a litigant to know who is petitioning against them.
Online, many users and public figures interpreted Amit's statement as inappropriate, with some calling it "mafia-like talk" and a "mafia-like threat." Professor Moshe Cohen-Eliya criticized Amit, stating his remark was a "mafia-like threat" against Zini for insisting on his legal right to know the petitioners' identities. Cohen-Eliya described Amit as a symbol of the "complete corruption of the legal world in service of maintaining the old hegemony."
Attorney Ohad Shalom echoed the criticism, telling "Galei Yisrael" radio that Amit's phrasing sounded like a threat, not a legal recommendation. He noted that such phrasing is typically used by those involved in organized crime. The legal debate continues as the court must now decide whether to compel the petitioners to reveal their full names.
