Attorney Gali Baharav-Miara submitted her official position to the High Court of Justice early Thursday morning on the petition against the appointment of Roman Gofman to the position of head of the Mossad - claiming that the appointment should be invalidated.
The position was submitted late and after a series of extensions granted by the High Court judges, who demanded that the document be received by midnight at the latest.
In her response, the Attorney General sharply attacks the decision of the majority of the members of the Advisory Committee for Senior Appointments, who approved the appointment again - after the High Court judges decided to return the issue of the appointment to the Committee for Senior Appointments.
According to her, the majority opinion is characterized by a clear bias aimed at reducing Goffman's share and clearing him of responsibility, and therefore she determined that this decision does not stand the legal test.
Baharav-Miara asks the court to reject the majority's conclusions and instead rely on the minority position of the committee's chairman, retired judge Asher Grunis.
However, the Attorney General's position does not make any reference to Grunis' updated position, according to which the investigation into the matter should be deepened, and this omission is particularly noticeable in the submitted document.
The attorney general pointed an accusing finger at the conduct of the committee members and wrote: "The majority opinion is characterized by bias aimed at minimizing Goffman's role and clearing him of responsibility. From reading the minutes, it is difficult to shake off the impression that some of the majority members had made up their mind to legalize the appointment - no matter what. As a result, they ignored data and information that do not support their thesis.".
Goffman submitted his response to the Attorney General in which he wrote: "The single question mark that faced the court has become a clear exclamation mark, which removes any shadow of doubt that there was no flaw in the purity of the respondent's qualities. In any case, there is no room for such an unusual and extreme intervention by the court, and the petitions should be dismissed in their entirety, while charging the petitioners with real expenses.".
Join the Haredim 10 Facebook page >>
Join the X page of Haredim 10 >>
Want more news, videos and stories? Join the Haredim 10 WhatsApp channel >>
