Five suits are being heard before a seven-justice panel of the Supreme Court this morning, against Prime Minister Sharon's firing of the two National Union party ministers, Benny Elon and Avigdor Lieberman.
Just over two weeks ago, only two days before what appeared to be a close Cabinet defeat of Sharon's Gaza disengagement plan, Sharon fired the two ministers, thus assuring himself of a 11-10 victory. In the end, the firings were not necessary, as a compromise proposal was advanced and was passed by a 14-7 margin.
One of the lawyers today compared Sharon's actions to those of Hitler as he took power in Germany's Third Reich in the 1930's. One of the judges asked him if he did not think he was going a bit too far, but the judges did not respond to the Prosecution's request to have the comparison erased from the protocol.
Atty. Akiva Nof, a former Likud MK who is representing two of the petitioners against the firings, said at the time that an Israeli Prime Minister is not the same as an American President, and cannot behave as Chief Executive. Another petitioner, Likud member Atty. Yossi Fuchs, said that Sharon's dismissal of Elon and Lieberman goes beyond what is considered reasonable: "There has never been, since the establishment of the state, an instance where the Prime Minister fired ministers merely in order to create an artificial majority. This is anti-democratic."
Prof. Ariel Ben-Dor of Haifa University told Arutz-7 last week, "The question is whether a Prime Minister can fire someone simply in order to prevent him from voting according to his understanding... - and in my opinion, the answer is no. Israel does not have a presidential system, and the head of the executive branch of government is not the Prime Minister but rather the Cabinet itself. The right of the Prime Minister to fire ministers is of course an important one, and it is designed to enable him to ensure that the ministers function according to government policy - but it is not, in my opinion, designed to allow him to manipulatively determine government policy before it has been determined."
Just over two weeks ago, only two days before what appeared to be a close Cabinet defeat of Sharon's Gaza disengagement plan, Sharon fired the two ministers, thus assuring himself of a 11-10 victory. In the end, the firings were not necessary, as a compromise proposal was advanced and was passed by a 14-7 margin.
One of the lawyers today compared Sharon's actions to those of Hitler as he took power in Germany's Third Reich in the 1930's. One of the judges asked him if he did not think he was going a bit too far, but the judges did not respond to the Prosecution's request to have the comparison erased from the protocol.
Atty. Akiva Nof, a former Likud MK who is representing two of the petitioners against the firings, said at the time that an Israeli Prime Minister is not the same as an American President, and cannot behave as Chief Executive. Another petitioner, Likud member Atty. Yossi Fuchs, said that Sharon's dismissal of Elon and Lieberman goes beyond what is considered reasonable: "There has never been, since the establishment of the state, an instance where the Prime Minister fired ministers merely in order to create an artificial majority. This is anti-democratic."
Prof. Ariel Ben-Dor of Haifa University told Arutz-7 last week, "The question is whether a Prime Minister can fire someone simply in order to prevent him from voting according to his understanding... - and in my opinion, the answer is no. Israel does not have a presidential system, and the head of the executive branch of government is not the Prime Minister but rather the Cabinet itself. The right of the Prime Minister to fire ministers is of course an important one, and it is designed to enable him to ensure that the ministers function according to government policy - but it is not, in my opinion, designed to allow him to manipulatively determine government policy before it has been determined."