If I could advise the attorney-general, I would suggest that as early as Friday he approach the investigators in the Ashkenazi-Harpaz case and call their attention to suspicions of obstruction of justice.
Over the weekend, there were two interviews with Boaz Harpaz, a key player in the Ashkenazi affair. In both interviews, he described how he and former IDF Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi tried, as it were, to coordinate their testimony -- deceptive as it were -- ahead of the chief of staff's questioning by police.
Of the two interviews, the one with Ayala Hasson on Israel Broadcasting Authority's Channel 1 TV News was revealing and incisive. The second interview, in Yedioth Ahronoth, was very problematic, as it tried to bury the scandal.
Here is a quote from the interview with Hasson, in which Harpaz describes his conversation with Ashkenazi:
"I accepted that Ashkenazi wanted to speak with me on a land line. I spoke to him. Ashkenazi said, 'Listen, I think the police will reach me.'
"'Of course they will reach you,' I say.
"And then he says, 'Listen, let's minimize our relationship, we'll say that we know each other, but not well or intimately.'
"I say to him, 'Listen I can't say ... if the issue of the text messages comes up, Ill say I had a relationship with Ronit [Ashkenazi]. It's very likely that someone will ask what the nature of that relationship was.'"
Does this not seem like an attempt to square their versions of the story? Is there any other interpretation? And if this is what Harpaz said when he was questioned, how is it that the former IDF chief of staff was not questioned for obstruction of justice?
Even if Harpaz made up this entire conversation, there is no disagreement that the former chief of staff did in fact call him, from a land line, from the home of his wife's girlfriend, on the day when the police investigation began. Why?
And why is it so important for Yedioth Ahronoth to conceal the connection between Ashkenazi and Harpaz? What happened there? Why did they push the "exclusive" interview to the pages of their weekend political supplement instead of making it a top story, as would have been expected? Why wasn't there a headline on page 1? Even in the interview itself, it seems that the subheadings based on Harpaz' words were well-diluted. Why? What are they afraid of? And what did Yedioth Ahronoth do on Sunday? The newspaper did not publish a follow-up of its own story. Rather, it merely placed a mention on the front page of a television critique, where the writers attacked the interview on Channel 1.
It is becoming increasingly apparent that the stench of the Ashkenazi affair is one of the worst in our nation's history. Hasson's interview (which was, how surprising, all but buried by Yedioth Ahronoth) shows that the chief of general staff's bureau was run as if it were a banana republic. This conduct lasted for a year or even longer. Ashkenazi's people would besmirch Defense Minister Ehud Barak; they would go on reconnaissance missions to collect information on the minister's bureau; and they mounted a clandestine bid to make Ashkenazi prime minister. In other words, welcome to Chile.
As is usually the case here in Israel, the mouthpiece of the convicted -- i.e., Yedioth Ahronoth -- is now protecting the antagonists who have a starring role in this collusion (as it has done in the past with offenders ranging from Shas MK Aryeh Deri to former Kadima Minister Abraham Hirchson, and from former Kadima Minister Haim Ramon to former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert). Everything is fair game when it comes to toppling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, even if that means mobilizing former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin and former Mossad chief Meir Dagan.
Yedioth Ahronoth ran a campaign that pitted Diskin, Dagan and Ashkenazi -- the so called "sane" axis -- against the "hysteria-driven" Netanyahu, who was overly eager to bomb Iran. The trio told us Iran might not really want a nuclear weapon; they said Israel could not act unilaterally and that it would be best to rely on U.S. President Barack Obama. As for Netanyahu, well, he was "obsessed" with Iran and was using the Iranian threat as a means of shifting attention away from what was really important.
This narrative, driven by Yedioth Ahronoth and championed by the Ashkenazi-Diskin-Dagan trio, has been shredded to pieces, a long time ago already. Yet, not one member of that group has ever said, "Sorry, I was wrong." Of course, no one is going to do this most basic thing.
There's no chance any one of them will own up to his mistake, especially given that a chunk of the Israeli media is up to its neck in this swamp.
Actually, this appears to be just the tip of the iceberg. Some of the investigated material remains under gag order. It is uncertain whether public security is enough to justify the secrecy.
The only security claim that could possibly justify withholding the various scenarios that may have happened at the IDF chief of staff's office is if our enemies' cognizance of these conversations could reduce IDF deterrence.
There is no other reason.
Therefore, the state probably will not make that claim. It needs to go to the court itself and ask for recordings from the Ashkenazi case to be declassified. If the prosecution fails to do that itself, it could make a mockery of itself in the future when we find out -- and such discoveries are inevitable in the long run -- what and who the state was protecting.
Is it feasible that the facts in the case should not be disclosed?
Meanwhile, investigative journalist Raviv Drucker of Channel 10 TV came up with his own version, saying that the whole Ashkenazi affair was actually Netanyahu's spin. The prime minister used Israel Hayom as a tool to besmirch Ashkenazi's reputation while the latter was gearing up to run against the prime minister in the next general elections, Drucker claimed.
It's hard to countenance such stupidity, concocted in Drucker's usual prattle. If we follow his thesis, Israel Hayom was apparently the voice determining that the initial document which was leaked to Channel 2, and which purported to show a smear campaign against Barak's leading contender for the IDF top spot Yoav Galant, was authentic, though within days it was found to be fake. According to Drucker's thesis, it was Israel Hayom that was undermining the defense minister; it was Israel Hayom's staff sending thousands of text messages to Ronit Ashkenazi; and it was Israel Hayom who deployed the individual who documented the intimate encounters of an IDF major-general, an officer who did not agree with Ashekanzi's plans.
Well, Israel Hayom did not do any of the aforementioned; there is a case and there are culprits; and the case is under investigation.
For a long time, Israel Hayom -- especially thanks to our columnist Dan Margalit -- has been almost the only publication to lead direct, relevant coverage of this serious case. Most others stood in the margins, defending those who did not deserve their protection. Now, when it turns out that we were right, there are individuals, like Drucker, who feel the need to justify their long-standing positions. They were wrong then, they are wrong now, and they are still misleading the public. At this stage, they are meant to recognize the truth. Maybe this explains their frustration.
טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו