Former Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) heads, Mossad officials, and IDF reserve officers asked the High Court of Justice to hear a petition seeking to cancel the reasonableness standard law on Sunday morning, expressing concern about the judicial reform legislation’s legal ramifications for Israeli soldiers and security operatives.
The 19 former officials sought to join a July 27 petition over security concerns, filed by a reserve colonel. The officer, who remained anonymous advises on IDF operations in the Gaza area.
The ex-intelligence officials to join the petition included former Shin Bet directors Yuval Diskin and Nadav Argaman, and former Mossad operations head and naval commando Shayetet 13 commander Nevo Erez. IDF reservists Maj.-Generals Tal Rousso, Nimrod Sheffer, Roni Numa, Colonels Yaron Rosen, Ziv Levy, and Ronen Koehler joined the group, in addition to nine reservist officers from brigadier-general to major.
Sheffer said that “Combat soldiers who will do everything to serve the state against its enemies are afraid, as the Attorney-General’s Office and international law experts say, canceling the reasonableness standard may lead to risk of their arrests and indictments in various courts in the world.”
Oded Savoray, one of the attorneys representing the officials and reserve officers, said that they were heroes who had contributed more to the state than could be imagined and were concerned that the Knesset was abandoning combat soldiers.
“The commanders were forced to come out for a legal struggle to defend the peace and safety of young warriors and coming generations of IDF commanders and security officials,” said Savoray.
The new risk security forces will face
The officials and petition argued that Israeli security forces will be in danger of being brought before the International Criminal Court. Under the principle of complementarity international legal forums defer to the jurisdiction of local courts if they are independent and have addressed a crime. Critics have expressed concern that Israeli forces would be subject to ICC jurisdiction because the restriction of reasonableness standard will hinder the independence and function of the courts.
"With one hand, the Israeli government sends our sons to fight on the battlefield, with the other, it lays a legal trap for them that could lead to their arrest abroad and the destruction of their lives. Either the members of the Knesset did not know the consequences of their vote to cancel the reasonableness standard, or they knew and simply decided to abandon the warriors," said Savoray.
The petition also challenged the law on the fact that the prime minister allegedly did not speak to the IDF Chief of Staff regarding updated information on the security situation and the law's impact.
"This is an organized effort designed to withhold vital information from Knesset members before they vote and consequently constitutes a serious flaw in the legislative process," said Savoray. "The prime minister has never before been too busy to meet with the Chief of Staff."
Savoray said that the Chief of Staff had vital information that was essential for MKs to know.
The reasonableness standard law restricted the use of judicial review of ministerial administrative decisions that could be deemed far beyond what a reasonable and responsible authority would decide. A High Court hearing is set for September 12 for petitions calling for the striking down of the basic law amendment. In a historic move, 15 justices will preside over the hearing for the first time.
The officials and other petitioners warned that the restriction of reasonableness would upset the rule of law and the balance of powers by removing one of the few tools of the court to check government excess. Other petitioners also argued that the amendment would remove requirements for politicians to provide reasonings for their administrative decisions, leading to concerns of increased corruption and the free appointment and firing of officials -- including the attorney-general.
Petitioners have contended that the reasonableness standard law went against constitutional norms because it enshrined a specific doctrine, while basic laws are supposed to enshrine general rules, structures, and powers of the state. The petitions also challenged the legislative process, as the law was advanced as a committee law rather than a private law. Committee laws are usually for technical matters and do not need to go through a preliminary reading and 45-day waiting period like private laws.
Defenders of the law argue that reasonableness was a highly subjective power that provided an expansive tool to an activist court that had already expanded its own power exponentially over the decades. The law, which was passed on July 24, was one of the provisions of the judicial reform that was announced at the beginning of the year.