Prime Minister Sharon\'s plan to appoint former GSS senior Ehud Yatom as head of his Anti-Terrorism Task Force appears to be blocked, at least for the near future. The Supreme Court ordered Sharon today to explain within 45 days why he should be allowed to appoint Yatom. The Court thus accepted a suit by Meretz MKs Yossi Sarid and Mossi Raz, who claimed that Yatom\'s involvement in the killing of two captured terrorists in the #300 Bus incident 17 years ago disqualifies him for the post.
Yatom was given a blanket pardon following the incident, with a promise that \"no harm would come to him as a result.\" Yatom\'s defenders say that the Court\'s decision is an unfair retraction of that promise. In addition, said his one-time attorney Dov Weisglass, Yatom was following orders from his GSS superiors at the time, and common practice in Israel is that orders that are not clearly illegal or immoral - i.e., have no \"black flag waving over it\" - must be followed.
Right-wing Knesset Members were upset by the Court\'s decision. MK Tzvi Hendel (National Union-Yisrael Beiteinu) told Arutz-7 today,
\"It\'s not that I\'m angry - I\'ve already gotten used to such decisions by the Supreme Court, and the best way is simply to act. I have therefore asked my legal counsel to request to include me as a defendant, together with the government, in the case. I know that this is a bit unusual, as people normally request to join the plaintiffs, but I feel that I have a good case. I will claim that several months ago, I filed suit against the Barak government for employing Yossi Ginnosar as a go-between in the diplomatic talks with the Palestinians. At the time, I had two arguments:
* One was that eight years ago, Ginnosar was disqualified from serving as Housing Ministry Director-General because of his own involvement in the same # 300 Bus case - so how can he now be allowed to serve on the negotiating team with the Palestinians, which is a much more sensitive job?
* Secondly, I claimed that Ginnosar had business interests with PA officials, which would compromise his objectivity.
The Court rejected outright my first claim, because eight years had already passed since he was disqualified from the Housing Ministry post. I will therefore claim in the current case that if eight years are enough to let bygones be bygones, then why can\'t the same be true now with Ehud Yatom?\"
Yatom was given a blanket pardon following the incident, with a promise that \"no harm would come to him as a result.\" Yatom\'s defenders say that the Court\'s decision is an unfair retraction of that promise. In addition, said his one-time attorney Dov Weisglass, Yatom was following orders from his GSS superiors at the time, and common practice in Israel is that orders that are not clearly illegal or immoral - i.e., have no \"black flag waving over it\" - must be followed.
Right-wing Knesset Members were upset by the Court\'s decision. MK Tzvi Hendel (National Union-Yisrael Beiteinu) told Arutz-7 today,
\"It\'s not that I\'m angry - I\'ve already gotten used to such decisions by the Supreme Court, and the best way is simply to act. I have therefore asked my legal counsel to request to include me as a defendant, together with the government, in the case. I know that this is a bit unusual, as people normally request to join the plaintiffs, but I feel that I have a good case. I will claim that several months ago, I filed suit against the Barak government for employing Yossi Ginnosar as a go-between in the diplomatic talks with the Palestinians. At the time, I had two arguments:
* One was that eight years ago, Ginnosar was disqualified from serving as Housing Ministry Director-General because of his own involvement in the same # 300 Bus case - so how can he now be allowed to serve on the negotiating team with the Palestinians, which is a much more sensitive job?
* Secondly, I claimed that Ginnosar had business interests with PA officials, which would compromise his objectivity.
The Court rejected outright my first claim, because eight years had already passed since he was disqualified from the Housing Ministry post. I will therefore claim in the current case that if eight years are enough to let bygones be bygones, then why can\'t the same be true now with Ehud Yatom?\"