The strong suit of Shai Nitzan, who was chosen to be the next state attorney (pending cabinet approval), is the scathing criticism leveled at him at both ends of the political spectrum. The Israeli Left condemns him as the stalwart of security hawks. In my view, this is to his credit.
The Right sees him as an enemy of settlements. Really, a religiously traditional man who sends his kids to national-religious schools? It doesn't sound plausible. It is unacceptable that following the Gaza disengagement and the battles over illegal outposts that he would need to employ bodyguards. It is inconceivable that a group of guests at a family event would surround and jeer him until he almost had to flee.
If the Right is willing to accept (or at least pay lip service to) the fact that the rule of law also applies to settlements, and that you cannot build a Jewish house on privately owned Palestinian land even if the Palestinian is afraid to claim his property, and that this is what the Torah commands regarding the "stranger in your gates," then Nitzan would be derelict in his duty if he did not enforce this.
The Right protested the fact that he used aggressive tactics like administrative detention against opponents of the Gaza disengagement who broke the law. I am no legal expert, but let's say they did receive disproportionately harsh treatment. Does such a misstep render him unfit? How many of the complainers slipped up in their public conduct without being called to account?
On the contrary, Nitzan would be unfit for the position if, contravening the law, the government and the attorney-general, he had released the lawbreakers because his heart was with Gush Katif.
I too have some misgivings about him. First, I was surprised at his willingness to represent the prosecution in discussions of a plea bargain with former President Moshe Katsav. More recently, and of greater concern, I never understood why he failed to support Avia Alef, former head of the economic crimes division of the State Attorney's Office. Alef, together with police Maj. Gen. Yoav Segalovich, rightly recommended indicting Avigdor Lieberman on the larger case involving shell companies rather than the fraud and breach of trust case in which he was ultimately acquitted.
Alarm bells went off when Nitzan supported closing the Lieberman shell company case. I feared he was just going along with Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein. This raises concerns. Will he be more lax in the battle for clean government? Is this the change he will introduce, in contrast with his predecessor, Moshe Lador, who at least during the first half of his term was sufficiently aggressive?
Because we are all too familiar with the tendency toward laxity in the battle against government corruption, we cannot welcome Nitzan with open arms or with drums and cymbals. But in light of his reputation as a consummate legal professional and charismatic leader, we can respect him, while reserving judgment.
טעינו? נתקן! אם מצאתם טעות בכתבה, נשמח שתשתפו אותנו