The Winograd Committee captured public attention by publishing its interim report about two weeks before releasing the key testimonies of the prime minister, the defense minister and the former chief of staff. Publishing the testimonies in essence voided the Supreme Court ruling that permitted a delay (so the committee could prepare), but the court made it clear this publication would allow the public to compare the panel's conclusions with the findings based on testimony.

A review of the published testimonies reflects significant censorship at work, and it is doubtful whether this met with the strict standards the Supreme Court set regarding what constituted immunity in the transcripts: only in the case of "near certainty of serious damage to state security," including harm to foreign relations.

"Legal parties and associates of the prime minister" are now complaining, according to press reports, there was censorship of the complimentary comments from committee members during the questioning about the decision making of the prime minister. Those statements, it was argued, contradict the report's serious personal conclusions.

	Advertisement

The prime minister, an attorney familiar with the rules of testimony, should know that the questions of judges or committee members contain no guarantees their conclusions will be in the same spirit. At times, questions give a favorable impression to a witness; however, they prove nothing. This was the case with former prime minister Ehud Barak, who could not have imagined that following his testimony before the Or Commission, its conclusions concerning him would be severe.

In any event, contrary to what is claimed, the statement of panel member Professor Ruth Gavison, for example, which refers to the Forum of Seven, set up by Olmert as an "experienced forum" of ministers, does not contradict the report's conclusions.

According to the report, the forum did create a basis for serious discussion by experienced figures, but "did not in effect serve in the role that it could have played." The reference in the press to such "contradictions" does not contribute to a substantive evaluation.

A far more significant claim is that the prime minister was not given an opportunity during his testimony to relate to matters that, among others, were the basis for serious conclusions about him. If his claims in this context are founded, then the committee did not meet the standards it set for itself in terms of rules of fairness, and this cannot go unanswered.

After all, in its interim report the committee noted: "We were careful to ensure that whoever may suffer damage [from its conclusions], will know what could damage him, and will be given full opportunity during his testimony before us to present us with his version, and to deal with the claims and facts that require it." In addition, the committee stressed: "We set for ourselves a rule, according to which we will not base any findings, conclusions or personal recommendations on material to which the relevant person is not exposed, and on which he had not been given an opportunity to respond."

The position of the committee is that it is sufficient to grant the right of response to the examinees on the various subjects detailed in the letter inviting them to appear before the committee, without requiring to issue separate warning letters to those who may be harmed at a stage after their testimony. Nonetheless, there can be no doubt about the committee's obligation to present the witness with every version or claim that could serve to establish a finding or a conclusion in his case, and which could harm his public standing.

The responsibility of the committee to be cautious is particularly emphasized when it involves possible damage to the prime minister that can affect the general political arena.

The claims now heard require a detailed and serious response from the committee, one that will relate to the specific claims that full opportunity to respond to all relevant issues was not given. It should be clear that the committee gave to all those about whom it drew personal conclusions an opportunity to counter everything that could be interpreted as having real potential damage.

At this stage it would be good if the committee would allow the prime minister and others who wish to do so, to bring before it, in writing or verbally, any argument responding to that which was argued against them. At the same time, it is appropriate for the committee to immediately publish testimonies still not released, foremost among them the testimony of the foreign minister, which may be relevant to the claims being made by those close to the prime minister.

The censorship of questions, done with too much enthusiasm in the testimonies published, is itself puzzling. It is possible to understand only if the questions include information that poses a threat to the security of the state in the broad sense, including foreign relations. Censorship in general should be used only as a last resort, to enable intelligent discussion of the committee's report.