The Senior Appointments Advisory Committee on Thursday urged the High Court of Justice to reject petitions against the appointment of IDF Maj.-Gen. Roman Gofman as the next Mossad chief.
Its decision to approve the appointment had been appropriate and did not justify judicial intervention, it said.
The High Court is set to hear the case next Tuesday. Two petitions challenged Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to appoint Gofman, his military secretary, to replace outgoing Mossad Director David Barnea.
The petitions center mainly on the Ori Elmakayes affair, in which Elmakayes, then a minor, was allegedly used in an unauthorized IDF-linked influence operation connected to the 210th Bashan Division while Gofman commanded it. Elmakayes was detained and indicted, but the case against him collapsed.
In its response to the court, the committee said the petitions should be dismissed. There had been no defect in its work, no basis to replace its judgment with that of the court, and no reason to reopen the appointment process, it said.
The committee said its role was an advisory one that focused on questions of integrity and propriety in senior appointments, rather than a broad professional assessment of whether a candidate is the best possible choice for the position.
According to the court filing, the committee examined the allegations against Gofman over several months, held multiple meetings, reviewed written and classified materials, and sought input from relevant officials before reaching its conclusion. The majority found that the material before it did not establish a defect in Gofman’s integrity that would prevent the appointment.
The committee rejected the petitioners’ claim that it should have spoken with Elmakayes. It had extensive material concerning his claims before it, including his public accounts, and it was not required to conduct a trial-like evidentiary process or summon every person connected to the affair, it said.
The court filing said the committee majority had concluded that Gofman’s conduct in the Elmakayes affair did not constitute an integrity flaw that would disqualify his appointment. The petitions had overstated Gofman’s role in the affair and relied on disputed factual claims, it said.
Former Supreme Court president Asher Grunis, who chairs the committee, dissented from the majority decision. He said there were flaws in Gofman’s conduct related to the Elmakayes affair and he should not be appointed as Mossad director.
The committee acknowledged the dissent but said internal disagreement did not make the majority decision unlawful. The majority was entitled to reach a different conclusion from Grunis after reviewing the material, it said.
Petitions question committee process on Gofman ruling
The petitions attacked the committee process itself, including the question of what material each member of the committee reviewed before the final decision was issued. Based on the public materials, it was not clear precisely what each committee member saw.
The committee said this did not change the legal outcome, and that the material before it was sufficient, the process met the legal requirements for the committee’s work, and the court should not intervene.
A separate point of friction in the case concerned representation. The committee notified the Attorney-General’s Office that because the committee supported Gofman’s appointment, and the attorney-general said she would not defend it, the majority wanted its position represented in the High Court by a private attorney.
The committee told cabinet secretary Yossi Fuchs it had selected attorney Avi Segal to represent it in the petitions. It asked Fuchs to handle the procedural aspect of that representation.
Gofman’s appointment has been controversial since Netanyahu announced his nomination in December. Critics have focused on his lack of prior Mossad experience, his close work with Netanyahu, and the Elmakayes affair.
Barnea opposed the appointment, while IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir supported it.
The legal challenges have centered mainly on Gofman’s integrity.
Elmakayes and the petitioners have said Gofman’s conduct in the affair had raised serious questions about judgment, responsibility, and reliability, particularly for a post leading Israel’s foreign intelligence agency. The committee took the opposite view, finding that the material did not show a defect severe enough to block the appointment.
Gofman is set to take office on June 2 for a five-year term unless the High Court intervenes.
Yonah Jeremy Bob contributed to this report.