The chairman of the coalition and the initiator of the amendment to the law of fortifications, MK Ofir Katz, commented today (Thursday) on the judges' claims that there is apparently room for interpretation regarding the applicability of the law, whether it will enter into force now or from the next Knesset. According to him: "As the initiator of the bill and the chairman of the committee that managed the legislative process, I and the members of the committee had no shadow of a doubt that we are legislating an arrangement that will apply immediately. There is no room for an interpretation that is contrary to our express position."
"You are not voting in the fourth reading in the Knesset"
During the hearing, lawyer Michael Rabilo, who independently represents the government, scolded the panel of judges: "Because there was a vote on Lapid's reservation that demanded the law be applied only from the next term and it was rejected 62-44, you are not a vote on the fourth reading in the Knesset."
He also said: "The personalism you claim is no less serious than the personalism in the legislation of the replacement government (Netanyahu-Ganz government). It was then established that a prime minister cannot fire certain ministers. The High Court approved the law."
President Hayut claimed during the debate that "there is an identity of interests between the legislators and the government that wants to maintain its rule". The comments came in response to the words of Attorney Yitzhak Brett who claimed that "something that concerns the future of the coalition, so calling it personal is correct. This is about one person, but anything that harms him will harm the government and his political future as a member of the Knesset."
The President also made it difficult for the legal representative of the Knesset: "What is the immediate need for legislation? Contrary to the rule you say, the desired rule is to have fundamental legislation with administrative consequences. It is better if it does not take immediate effect," she said. She added: "They say that the issue of fortifications is not on the agenda, so what is burning? The mechanism that was enacted in such haste did not stand the test."
The judges criticized: "The purpose of the law was to reduce the grounds for deportation and to rule out the possibility of deportation due to a conflict of interest," Knesset representative Attorney Brett confirmed the claim.
