Shai Nitzan defends both A- G and himself
Former state attorney Shai Nitzan on Friday night came out in defense of AttorneyGeneral Avichai Mandelblit on Channel 12 days after a recording of a private call of Mandelblit’s came to light in which he slammed Nitzan as a “manic” who “has his arms around my throat.”
In the interview, Nitzan said, “he was mad at me, but I still think I was right… because I thought there was an implication of a conflict of interest,” in defending his decision not to rule on the legal issue that Mandelblit was angry about and said in the private call that Nitzan was holding over him.
This brought to light that in 2015- 2016, Mandelblit had a major point of tension with Nitzan regarding the Harpaz
Affair decision.
Overall, Nitzan made two main points.
He said that Mandelblit should not be taken to task for making improper comments in a private call with a confidant since most people speak from the gut and not necessarily rationally in private conversations.
Second, just as he defended
Mandelblit against accusations that he had violated his duties or been blackmailed as attorney- general, Nitzan still defended his decision on the actual legal issue connected to the Harpaz Affair.
The statement continued that, “working relations between Dr. Mandelblit and with the prior state attorney Shai Nitzan, were excellent, the two worked with full cooperation and a purity of purpose to guarantee the rule of law… and all of the other personal issues were left to the side.”
The controversy blew up in a Channel 12 report on Tuesday night airing Mandelblit’s private comments in telephone calls with then Israel Bar Association president Efi Naveh in 2015- 2016.
Although Mandelblit was only a peripheral figure in the Harpaz Affair – it mostly involved a 2010 rivalry between then defense minister Ehud Barak and then IDF chief Gabi Ashkenazi over who was the country’s “Mr. Security” – he was suspected of withholding information from police for 24 hours.
Then attorney- general Yehuda Weinstein closed the case against Mandelblit in 2015, but did not specify whether the decision was based on a “lack of evidence” or because