The committee tasked with screening would-be state attorneys was scheduled to interview candidates on Monday.
The term of the incumbent, Moshe Lador, comprises two eras: Lador I and II. In the first part of his term, he assumed an aggressive, pro-active posture. His decision to summon American businessman Morris Talansky for questioning even before the trial against then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert commenced turned out to have salvaged the case. In the second period, his glow began to fade. It seems that he chose to retreat in the aftermath of that interview where he made unsubstantiated accusations against Olmert, who in turn sued him for libel. Olmert's partial acquittal by the Jerusalem District Court may have also played a role in his behavioral shift.
Lador II disagreed with Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein and others in the State Attorney's Office on the chances of success in the case against Avigdor Lieberman. He thought the state should try him on the "big counts" surrounding his business dealings abroad and the alleged shell companies he had set up to make illicit transactions. But Lador sailed to a safe harbor, all the while saying that Weinstein's decision to file a watered-down indictment against Lieberman was reasonable and commonsensical. But both the head of the Financial Crimes Department Avia Alef at the time and then-Israel Police Intelligence and Investigations Division Major General Yoav Segalovich were in favor of including the more damning charges. So why did he let them be overruled-
Two of the prospective state attorneys, Shai Nitzan and Yehoshua Lemberger, supported Weinstein's view. But their decisions were shaped by professional considerations (although their rationale still baffles me).
Israel needs a state attorney who is in the same mold as Dorit Beinisch and Edna Arbel, the first retired and the second a Supreme Court judge. Because of the rise in white-collar crimes -- to the point that the corrupt behavior of some suspects has all but become a norm -- it is incumbent upon us to find an impartial, fearless prosecutor who would hold them accountable.
Of course, just because the public wants someone to be put on trial doesn't mean the state attorney should bow to the pressure. If he deliberates in good faith and ultimately decides against an indictment, he must tune out the criticism he would be subject to in the press; he should listen to his conscience and deal with all the unpleasant consequences. But this rule of thumb cuts both ways -- he should hold every would-be defendant to the same standards and if he favors an indictment, he must be all-in.
The public must have faith in the attorney-general and the state attorney, and it must trust their prosecutorial discretion when it comes to indictments; that trust is an essential part of their job description. Yehuda Weinstein squandered much of the public's good will by flip-flopping on the investigation against Chief of General Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and his acquaintance Boaz Harpaz (who allegedly mounted a campaign to besmirch Ashkenazi's would-be successor and possibly engaged in a cover-up). He may have properly deliberated the Lieberman case and decided against a full indictment, but by that time he had no more capital to spend and his detractors could not be swayed.
Nitzan and Lemberger, as the leading contenders, have many positive traits. But both have some professional shortcomings. For example, neither has prosecuted criminal cases in the lower courts. How would they preserve their integrity, and would they have the necessary stamina? That, it seems, is their main test.
טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו
