Last update - 01:40 18/04/2007
Winograd panel enlisting army, jurists in battle against High Court
By Amos Harel
Members of the Winograd Committee have recently tried to enlist the cooperation of several senior Israel Defense Forces commanders in the panel's legal struggle to have postponed the release of the minutes of testimony heard by its members. The committee has also asked the military censorship to exercise wide discretion in censoring testimonies that could be damaging to IDF officers.
The committee - which is examining the performance of the government during the Second Lebanon War - is engaged in a legal struggle against the High Court of Justice's ruling that transcripts of certain testimony should be released as soon as possible.
The committee argues that the release of the testimonies before the publication of an interim report would run the risk of creating a false public impression as to the final conclusions of their report. In addition, the committee is concerned that the immediate release of testimonies by IDF officers might cause severe damage to some 30 officers in active service who appeared before the panel.
One committee member said earlier this week that the officers had testified under the impression their statements were to remain classified. He explained they had therefore felt free to express open criticism of the actions of their superior officers. The committee was said to be apprehensive that release of their testimonies might jeopardize their military careers.
Sources close to the government said that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert formed his opinion against the release of the testimonies after hearing from Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkemazi about the possible ramifications.
These concerns formed the basis for the informal contacts by members of the committee and senior IDF officers over the past few days. The committee contacted the Military Advocate General, to request that the military censorship exercise its discretion to help protect the officers' careers.
In addition, the committee asked the advocate general to help find further justifications for postponing the release of the testimonies of IDF officers.
The two parties discussed the possibility of employing a military legal provision stating that the findings of military probes were confidential, and must remain undisclosed. This would arguably render the testimonies heard by the committee classified.
However, one of the members of the committee rejected yesterday the claims that the committee was concerned about the potential personal damage to its witnesses, citing instead "discontent over the interference with the committee's jurisdiction."
Meanwhile, the members of the Winograd Committee have stressed over past weeks that their report would in no way be lenient on Olmert and the government. They added that the final report will be harsh to a degree that could surprise the committee's critics.
"The committee will not repeat the mistake of the Agranat Commission after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which produced harsh criticism of the military leadership but left the political echelon unscathed," one committee member said recently. "Both military and civilian decision-makers are in the same boat this time. Both failed to deliver, and they will be subjected to equal criticism for this."
MK Zahava Gal-On filed the petition asking the High Court to order the release of the testimonies, including those of Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz and former chief of staff Dan Halutz. The court ruled earlier that the testimonies should be released by Passover. However, the Winograd Committee requested an extension from the court. Gal-On then filed a second petition demanding the immediate release of the testimonies.
The High Court of Justice is expected to rule by the weekend on the second petition. The court will have to decide whether to accept the committee's position and postpone the release of the testimonies until the publication of the committee's interim report, due by the end of April.
(Nir Hasson contributed to this report.)