Serving a petition against someone anonymously is not acceptable, certainly not in a standard society or country. The tax authorities at one time created a 'tip list,' a phone number which citizens could use to snitch on tax evaders and law offenders and their ilk, without having to identify themselves, allowing the authority to go ahead and do their work. The legal bodies, however, very soon realized that such a platform was a means of settling grudges with enemies, and quickly abolished it.
Whoever wishes to present grievances against another citizen must stand up publicly, with his full name, and enumerate his complaints, and whoever does not wish his name to appear, should remain home and not bother the judicial system.
These simple matters did not concern the judicial system when 186 administrators and employees of the Shin Bet presented a petition to the High Court against the appointment of David Zini as the new head of the Security Service. Three former heads of the Security Service stood behind the petition with their full name, joining another 186 anonymous petitioners who maintained that Zini lacked the necessary experience and expertise for such a major office. This was not the only appeal, since the Movement for Quality Government and other similar organizations also presented their plea against his appointment. The plea was rejected on the grounds that it was based on nothing more than newspaper quotes and not on actual facts.
The petition was rejected by a majority, when Judges Mintz and Solberg headed the rejection, and Zini received the post. Yitzhak Amit, the chief justice, was the one who favored the petition but found himself in the minority, having failed to engineer a rejection by assigning enough judges to swing the matter in his favor.
Zini, as was normally expected, served the court his own demand to publicize the names of the people who appeared on the petition with their initials alone. Judge Solberg noted that this created a problem regarding other petitioners who raise objections while not standing behind them with responsibility. He suggested to Zini to withdraw his plea of receiving a list of the full names appearing on the original petition on the grounds that these people will be expected to help the Security Service in the future, a totally groundless argument.
How, indeed, is Zini, as head of the Shin Bet, expected to rely on people who opposed his appointment to begin with if he doesn't know who they are? There is no law that supports the anonymity of petitioners, which is why the court approved of Zini's appeal to present the full list of signatures within a week.
Amit tried to convince Zini at the last moment to withdraw his petition, saying to him, "My personal opinion is that the head of the Shin Bet is advised to reconsider his stand with my colleague," the attorney of the anonymous petitioners. "I don't think this it will be good for him to go through with it."
Let us mention that Yitzhak Amit is not on the High Court judicial panel as a strategic advisor, but is expected to act according to judicial criteria. No one is interested in his personal opinion but in his judicial status, a stand which legally obligates justice and integrity in revealing the full signatures of the petitioners, as the court itself ruled.
The statement to Zini that "I am not sure that it would be advantageous for him," is not a judicial opinion but a futile attempt to protect the petitioners themselves for unrevealed reasons. However, Amit proved, and this is not the first time, that the office he is holding is a few measures too big for his shoulders.
This was also shown when he expressed his view regarding the hearing on expanding the broadcasting area of the chareidi radio stations whose listeners lack access to modern technology. Zini expressed himself derogatorily against the chareidi public when he said, in the course of the hearing, "Many people who possess a kosher telephone, have another phone for communication in their other pocket." And he maintained that this applies to a significant percent of the chareidi public - "The kosher cell phone is only for show."
Did he ever examine the facts? Did he base his words on any sources? Or was this only based on a sour joke? Did he know for sure what percentage of the chareidi public possesses a one-and- only kosher phone and is not privy to emergency orders that were being discussed?
Amit, as we said, does not differentiate between his personal opinions and his judicial position. This alone would be enough to invalidate him from a top office which he gained or took, without official authorization.
