But all the preliminary assessments became irrelevant when it became clear that Friedmann's agenda was to improve the judicial system only after demolishing it. It's not important whether some of his criticism is justified. What's important is the damage he has done to the good name of the system for which he is responsible. If there is any "accomplishment" Friedmann can already claim, it is serious, unforgivable damage to public confidence in the prosecution and the courts. If Friedmann continues his opposition day in and day out to people, appointments, institutions and decisions, then it won't be long before a criminal tells the judges that they have no right to imprison him because they serve the gang of the rule of law and their decisions are based on irrelevant reasons.

Friedmann can explain that his oppositional conduct is based on a legitimate worldview, which is stringent in its understanding of the separation of powers and wants to strengthen the Knesset and the government. But in the meantime, he is destabilizing the building's foundations. Everything he suggests - changing the composition of the judicial selection committee; reducing the value of seniority in the selection of a Supreme Court president; changing the makeup of the panel that selects the state prosecutor, such that the retired judge who serves on it is chosen by the justice minister rather than the Supreme Court president; changing the way the attorney general is appointed; changing the way the selection committee is appointed, such that the court doesn't determine which judge sits on it; expanding the power of the politicians at the expense of civil servants when it comes to selecting the state prosecutor, an area the politicians should actually stay away from - raises the possibility that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will select the state prosecutor himself from among several candidates, the same prosecutor who will decide whether to indict Olmert.

The silencing of the attorney general this week, when he tried to warn of the politicization of the process of appointing the state prosecutor, does not contribute to good government. The attorney general must be completely independent, in accordance with the democratic tradition of Israel, and reforms must be made collaboratively.

	Advertisement

Until recently it seemed that the argument between the Supreme Court president and the justice minister was personal. But it has become increasingly clear that the dispute is about the independence of the judicial system, which a non-political minister is actually making intolerably subordinate to politics. The argument that the government cannot function due to a fear of criminal investigations resembles the patricidal son's plea for mercy because he is now an orphan. If there were less governmental corruption, the intervention of the judicial system would diminish. Olmert appointed Friedmann in reaction to the indictment of his friend Haim Ramon. No explanation of principles will cover that up.