Winograd panel won't name names to expedite report

The Winograd Committee investigating the Second Lebanon War will issue its final report without any conclusions or recommendations against specific persons involved. By so doing, the committee is trying to avoid having to issue warning letters to individuals who may be harmed by its conclusions, and thus be able to publish the report by the year's end.

However, this may not be enough to avoid legal wrangles. Several senior IDF officers are planning to petition the High Court of Justice, arguing that even without any specific references to individuals, the report's conclusions may harm them. Like an earlier petition to the court, which demanded that warning letters must be issued to subjects of the report's conclusions, and that they must be afforded an opportunity to respond, the officers are once more relying on what they consider to be their right to self-defense.

In early October the committee informed the High Court that in the wake of the petition filed by the Military Advocate General defense team, it intended to issue warnings to those who may be harmed by "the findings, conclusions or recommendations" to be included in its final report.

Nonetheless, to date, the committee has not issued any such letters of warning.

According to the Channel 2 main evening news bulletin, the committee has no intention of sending any such letters.

The committee members decided recently that their final report will include only general conclusions and recommendations, which they believe do not require warning letters.

The committee has not yet issued an official statement on this matter.

Haaretz has learned that during closed deliberations, the committee decided that undertaking the legal route charted by the High Court petition, and offering individuals the right to respond, would delay the release of the final report by a year.

On the other hand, if the committee were to opt for the more direct route, without discussing the role of individuals and without warning letters, it could publish the report by December.

At least two committee members, Major General (res.) Menachem Einan and Professor Ruth Gavison, have other commitments that preclude them from remaining on the committee for another year.

Moreover, the committee is concerned that such a long delay in releasing the report will render it irrelevant. Committee members have said recently that the report's planned form "will not provide the public with blood or heads rolling in the streets."

"It is not our duty to offer a political bottom line, which determines whether the prime minister is suitable to serve in his position," the committee said. "But the report will say things sufficiently clearly and sharply. Those who want to interpret them politically and use the conclusions to confront the government may do so."

In response to the reports, senior sources in the MAG's defense team said last night that the committee's decision is not satisfactory.

They maintain that it contravenes the commitment the committee gave the High Court, and expressed concerns that even general statements regarding the conduct of military divisions will reflect negatively on senior officers who participated in the war.