Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein and State Attorney Shai Nitzan have every right to consult their respective teams over who is right: Rabbi Yoshiyahu Pinto or Maj. Gen. Menashe Arbiv. But this deliberative process should be concluded at lightening speed lest Weinstein once again be accused of dragging his feet. Pinto's attorney, Eli Zohar, made some serious allegations against Arbiv. The Justice Ministry's investigation department believes a criminal inquiry is in order. But Arbiv's lawyer, Gideon Fisher, has insisted Pinto's accusations are just "minor misdeeds" that have been scrutinized before and dismissed as insignificant. The circumstances surrounding this case could make pundits work overtime as they try to imagine how things unfold. There are some who say Pinto will be offered a deal and made into a state witness against Arbiv. Others point to the opposite direction, saying the major general will once again spearhead the police's anti-corruption apparatus by assuming command of Lahav 433. Both scenarios are plausible, but only one will ultimately materialize. Choosing the right path is like playing chess. You have to put all the pieces on the chessboard. Having a very short time out is justifiable, but only if it is followed by swift movement, with the entire set. This is a complex manner. If Arbiv did what he is was accused of doing, he must not be allowed to return to his unit. But what if mob bosses, having resorted to save their own skins at his expense, conspired to bring him down through false accusations? What if Arbiv was set up? Even if the State Attorney's Office can't settle on whom to prosecute, there is one thing it knows for sure: Pinto's actions were grave indeed. The State Attorney must pursue this case with determination and resolve; it must embark on a path that leads to the final destination, even if that means only partial success. Prosecutors must indict Pinto. They must not dither, they must not drag their feet and they must not hide. A plea bargain with the rabbi? There will be ample time to discuss such matters once the trial gets going. Pinto's allegations against Arbiv will be thoroughly examined. While he may have had to answer similar questions before he was promoted, this time no stone should be left unturned. What if Pinto doesn't provide the necessary evidence? What if his people refuse to testify? The answers may not be obvious, owing to the fact that part of the investigation is being conducted overseas. Turning Pinto into a defendant would make any deal appear more legitimate; it would also streamline the negotiations. This case doesn't just boil down to who gets indicted. It is about a charismatic rabbi and his culture of amulets and spirits, and a personality cult that includes both mobsters and police officers. His followers have elevated his stature because they want to benefit from his blessings and supposed supernatural powers, not because they admire his biblical commentary.