Smotrich's High Court Petition Criticized as Strategic Blunder
Translated & summarized from Srugim by baba
Bezalel Smotrich, chairman of the Religious Zionism party, filed a petition with the High Court of Justice against Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara over construction tenders in Ma'ale Adumim. Critics, including Srugim editor Aryeh Yoeli, called the move a strategic blunder and hypocritical, given the party's recent video criticizing the judiciary. The petition is seen by some as empowering Justice Yitzhak Amit, whom the party had previously attacked.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Bezalel Smotrich petitioned the High Court against the Attorney General regarding Ma'ale Adumim construction tenders.
- Critics accuse Smotrich of a strategic blunder by petitioning the court he recently denounced.
- The petition is seen as empowering Justice Yitzhak Amit, previously targeted by Smotrich's party.
- The Religious Zionism party recently released a video criticizing the judiciary.
- The article suggests Smotrich's actions legitimize judicial intervention in executive matters.
Bezalel Smotrich, chairman of the Religious Zionism party, has been criticized for filing a petition with the High Court of Justice against Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara. The petition challenges Baharav-Miara's alleged obstruction of construction tenders in the E1 area of Ma'ale Adumim. This move has drawn sharp criticism, particularly from Aryeh Yoeli, editor of the Srugim website, who labeled it a "failure" for Smotrich.
Yoeli pointed out the apparent contradiction in Smotrich's actions, noting that the Religious Zionism party recently released a video criticizing the "rule of the jurists," which depicted police dragging Supreme Court Justices Yitzhak Amit and Dafna Barak-Erez from a protest. By petitioning the High Court, Smotrich is seen by critics as empowering Justice Amit, whom the party had previously targeted. Yoeli argued that this action grants the court undue influence over the executive branch.
Further criticism suggests that Smotrich's petition represents a strategic error, legitimizing the High Court's involvement in executive decisions. The article also references a separate issue involving Smotrich and MK Simcha Rothman, suggesting their campaign efforts overshadowed their substantive policy discussions.
Mentioned
