When the announcement was made that the Military Advocate General had taken leave, the police still did not have significant evidence of her involvement in the leak. What they did have was an admission from an officer in the Military Advocate General’s Corps who, during questioning prior to a polygraph test, admitted that she had leaked the video with the approval of her superiors. After the announcement, reports emerged claiming that the Military Advocate General was not a suspect, and that it was an officer who was involved — the kind of briefing that usually drives those carrying out the orders out of their minds. The next day, the officer told the police exactly what had happened and handed over all the evidence.
By the time the Military Advocate General had taken responsibility for her actions, it was already too late. The rift between her and the other people she had implicated had become too wide. In other words, how could such an intelligent and successful woman as the Military Advocate General have behaved with such stupidity?
Amid the wave of criticism over the arrests of the soldiers from Force 100, the Military Advocate General could have convened a briefing for military correspondents with an officer acting on her behalf. The officer could have shown the reporters a very clear still image showing the detainee in question with a stain on his trousers, in the area where he had been injured. This would not have violated any rules; the police do this from time to time — releasing footage to refute a suspect’s version of events in the media. If the Military Advocate General had already decided to leak information to one reporter, why leak a video that did not actually prove anything? And if she had already leaked that video, why share it with half the world? And once she had shared it and it became the subject of an investigation, why not take responsibility then?
It is possible that the reason is that the Military Advocate General’s Corps is not subject to any truly effective oversight. I have dealt with several cases in military courts, with the Military Advocate General’s Corps on the other side. I have spoken with quite a few lawyers who specialize in military law. They, too, said that the military courts and the Military Advocate General’s Corps are almost the same machine. The chances of getting the courts to rule against the position of the Military Advocate General’s Corps are close to zero. In addition, Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi has already demonstrated in quite a few cases that even a little public criticism is enough to make her back down. Perhaps that is also part of the explanation.
From there to the campaign of vilification against her, however, is an enormous distance. The “march of shame” organized for her outside Neve Tirtza Prison and the protest outside her home, while she was still in a difficult psychological state, are merely further expressions of the fact that there is no way to convince the most extreme Netanyahu supporters. There is no point in searching for some Benny Gantz-style middle ground. There is no point in talking to them; they need to be defeated.
Unfortunately, the mistakes made by the Military Advocate General managed to cast a shadow over the attorney general as well. Netanyahu supporters had previously tried to stretch the “conflict of interest” doctrine to absurd extremes. They tried to disqualify her from dealing with the appointment of the Shin Bet chief because she was supposedly “a close friend of Ronen Bar and Nadav Argaman.” Facts are for the weak. It turned out to be a superficial acquaintance based on a personal tragedy.
After that, they tried to disqualify her from dealing with the so-called “1,000-series” cases. Even the prime minister claimed that there was a terrible flaw in her conduct because one of the (insignificant) witnesses in Case 1000 was her partner. That did not hold up either. Now, unfortunately, it has worked better, aided by good people who continue to fall into Netanyahu-supporter traps.
As the evidence in this case has become known, there is no evidence that the attorney general knew that the Military Advocate General had leaked the material and was lying about the investigation process. So far, the police have not even requested to take an open statement from her. There was a supervising prosecutor assigned to the case, and, as far as is known, he was the one who spoke with senior officials in the Military Advocate General’s Corps. He is the one who will have to testify — perhaps he already has.
So why should the attorney general be disqualified? People say, “the appearance of impropriety.” The appearance of impropriety of what, exactly? The only reason that “it doesn’t look good” is that there has been an endless campaign from the right against Gali Baharav-Miara. We must not give in to it.