"The Jurists' Rebellion", Chapter 4: How the State Attorney's Office became a body immune to criticism

The investigative series "The Jurists' Rebellion," which explored the transformation of the Israeli regime through the legal system, concludes with a fourth chapter dedicated entirely to the State Attorney's Office and its former head, Shai Nitzan. The chapter examines how the State Attorney's Office, under Nitzan's leadership, became a body that fights every attempt at external oversight and controls information and political destinies.

Two sets of rules: from the Disengagement to Ruth David

The chapter opens with a review of Nitzan's policy during the Disengagement period. It is alleged that Nitzan led a hard and uncompromising hand against opponents of the plan, which included the establishment of special courts and the arrest of minors — moves perceived by many as politically selective enforcement.

On the other hand, his conduct in the Ruth David affair, a former senior district attorney, is presented. The chapter claims that Nitzan scolded David's investigators and demanded they apologize to her, which aroused a feeling among critics that the system operates on a double standard: forcefulness toward the public, and hermetic protection of the system's "own flesh and blood."

The war on criticism: the Hila Gerstel affair

One of the central points of conflict described in the chapter is the tenure of Hila Gerstel as the Commissioner for Complaints against the State Attorney's Office. The series shows how Nitzan, together with the Prosecutors' Organization, waged a fierce struggle against the oversight institution until Gerstel's resignation. This struggle, it is claimed, deepened the feeling that the State Attorney's Office fears the exposure of internal flaws and is not prepared to accept any authority that will examine its actions.

The Zadorov case and the Institute of Forensic Medicine

The chapter reveals allegations of attempts to bias the legal process. In the Zadorov case, it is claimed that Nitzan tried to change an affidavit from the Institute of Forensic Medicine so it would not contradict the State Attorney's Office's thesis, and even acted to prevent the promotion of Dr. Maya Forman due to her testimony. Zadorov's acquittal in the retrial is presented in the chapter as proof of a systemic failure for which no soul-searching has been done to this day.

Moshe Saada and the Netanyahu cases: "Shai Nitzan obstructs investigations"

A dramatic part of the chapter concerns the testimony of Moshe Saada, former deputy head of the Police Investigation Department (Mahash). Saada claims in the chapter that Shai Nitzan "obstructed investigations" and "trampled Mahash" to protect the flagship case — the Netanyahu case. According to Saada, the testimony of an investigator named Chavkin regarding criminal offenses within the investigation procedures was neutralized by Mahash with Nitzan's backing. "If this had been exposed in real-time, the case would have shattered into pieces," says Saada in the chapter.

Aharon Barak, Avichai Mandelblit and Shai Nitzan

The final chapter ties the ends of the entire series together. Tamir Shnaid summarizes the process: Aharon Barak gave the system the theoretical and constitutional power; Shai Nitzan implemented this power in the State Attorney's Office — the place where they decide who will be investigated and who will be put on trial; and Avichai Mandelblit exercised this power at the decisive moment.

The series concludes with a poignant democratic question: In a country where the final word belongs to a group of jurists that no one chose, and who refuse to accept criticism, does the public still have the power to determine its fate? As Yehuda Shefer says in the chapter: "One must find the way to fix the State Attorney's Office... it is possible there is something to improve here."