Last night, I read the 95 page summary of Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein's decision to not file the more serious indictment against Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. I realized that Weinstein is a gifted defense lawyer. No one could have written a better defense for Lieberman. The problem is that Weinstein is not the head of the Public Defender's Office. Rather, he is the attorney-general in charge of prosecution. For more than 40 years, a cadre of elite warriors served the country with integrity and courage, acting in a determined and intelligent manner. You can close your eyes and remember the many glorious names that fought for the rule of law in the court system, police department, media and State Prosecutor's Office. These warriors jumped from battle to battle, fighting the ongoing war against the growing corruption in the souls of white-collar criminals. But as time passed, many of these warriors retired and others fell by the sword in battles in courtrooms and endless discussions at the State Prosecutor's Office. Only remnants remained to take on Ehud Olmert. Luckily, Weinstein did not prevent them from doing so. What could have caused the complete turnabout in the attorney-general's position in the Lieberman case? The more serious indictment against Lieberman, which Weinstein decided not to file, was based on years of discussion and careful consideration. Could those who formulated it really have been so reckless to do so without substantial evidence to present in court- If Weinstein was serious and responsible when he signed the draft of the more serious indictment against Lieberman last year, how did it all get away from him? On Thursday, Weinstein decided to indict Lieberman for fraud and breach of trust, which are serious charges but trivial when compared to the evidence that was known by police and prosecutors. For example, section 48 on page 13 of the summary describes suspected witness harassment. It says that one witness was called for a meeting at a cafe without knowing that Lieberman was waiting for him there. This was a classic case of witness harassment. But for Weinstein, it was as if this meeting never happened. Case closed. This was similar to how the State Prosecutor's Office refused to see a meeting between former Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and his friend Boaz Harpaz as a possible sign of witness collaboration and the hindering of an investigation. Weinstein's decision in the Lieberman case and the foot-dragging in the Harpaz case are signs of failed processes. They represent violations of the Israeli public's trust. Weinstein should be dismissed for this breach of trust, perhaps even before Lieberman is forced out of the government. This is one clear message from recent events. Israel needs a return of the justice-seeking legal officials and journalists that it once had.
