Former senior officials, in particular those whose tenure was not extended or who were transferred to other positions, would be wise to take a vow of silence after leaving office. The interviews with the media and scholarly lectures sometimes put their terms in office in a gloomy light. Up until Sunday afternoon, one could have argued over whether former Israel Police Commissioner Ronnie Alsheikh was carrying on with the problematic conduct he adopted while serving as chief of police, which harmed the public's trust in the police. When the police are in the process of losing the trust of the public, this presents a genuine problem in a democratic regime.
In some of his remarks, Alsheikh appeared to feign innocence, either that or he underestimates the intelligence of the audience. Already at the early stages of the investigation into Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, many in Israel have come to understand that the police are working with the media. There were incessant leaks from the interrogation rooms, which could be seen night after night on TV screens, including the transcripts from witness testimonies.
The public has been given the impression that there has been blatant cooperation between officials involved in the investigation and journalists. Many were convinced that members of the police were leaking investigative materials to the journalists, in return for sympathetic media coverage when it comes their turn to vie for a senior position. The Supreme Court has referred to this type of activity as a way in which to ensure you are taken care of in the future. Does this also count as bribery? To the best of my knowledge, investigators have not been administered polygraph tests in order to discern who is leaking the information.
Alsheikh has proposed police reporters be tasked with finding out whether he was behind the leaks. Seriously?! I do not understand why he considered it his responsibility to read all of the materials from the investigation. Maybe it was in order to decisively determine that an indictment should be filed for a bribery offense and that there is no dispute over the clauses. Or maybe it was to please Ilana Dayan on her investigative television newsmagazine "Uvda."
Alsheikh claimed the police could not have set Netanyahu up. I don't know what the basis for this assertion is, as we have already witnessed attempts by the police to frame those not in their favor, for example the late Justice and Finace Minister Yaakov Neeman, who was investigated for perjury and tax evasion, among others. The attorney general's decision on an indictment is based upon the investigative materials collected by the police and Alsheikh was right to say that if there were problems with the investigative materials, the public's trust in the police would likely take a hit. According to recent and important reports, it seems there are already issues with the materials collected in Case 4,000, which involves allegations that Netanyahu, who held the government's communications portfolio until February 2017, influenced regulation to benefit the owner of Israeli telecom giant Bezeq, Shaul Elovitch. The conclusion then must be that the attorney general should closely examine the facts presented to him in the evidence, the leaks as well as the tainting of the investigation. He might discover that there really is nothing there. At the very least, he might hold off on announcing his decision until after a hearing.
