[59883] The Gofman Appointment Storm: Allegations of an Obstruction Attempt by the Attorney General
[59883] The Gofman Appointment Storm: Allegations of an Obstruction Attempt by the Attorney General
A storm surrounds the appointment process of Gofman as head of the Mossad, as legal commentators and journalists heavily criticize the conduct of the Attorney General's office.
The storm surrounding the Gofman appointment: Allegations of "dirty games" by the Attorney General
The political and legal establishment is in an uproar over attempts to stop the appointment of Roman Gofman to lead the Mossad. Prominent writers in the Israeli media, including Amit Segal and Avishai Grinzaig, claim that the attempt by the Attorney General, Gali Baharav-Miara, to link Gofman to a conflict of interest is "a truly deranged attempt to sling mud at a person." According to Segal, the claims are baseless, as Gofman could not have foreseen that the High Court of Justice would order an affidavit to be collected from Brigadier General G., a key figure in the affair.
Avishai Grinzaig analyzes the Attorney General's conduct as a deliberate attempt to disqualify the appointment after realizing that the judges were inclined to approve it. Grinzaig points to a series of actions by the legal counsel, from transferring partial documents to an attempt to submit "secret information" behind closed doors, and compares it to the practice used in the case of Roi Kahlon: "Moving the goalposts and the dirty games of Baharav-Miara and Limon are, in my eyes, something grave."
On the other hand, Gadi Taub, who sharply criticizes the system, raises claims on his blog regarding the conduct of the outgoing Mossad chief, Dadi Barnea. Taub argues that Barnea uses a "reprehensible practice" of hiring external communications consultants to engineer messages, and adopts Grinzaig's analysis that this is a political attempt to stop the Gofman appointment through non-substantive means.
From a legal perspective, journalist Netael Bandel presents a calmer angle, explaining that even if there were a connection between Gofman and Brig. Gen. G., it occurred within the framework of a formal handover after his initial appointment. According to his view, if the Attorney General argues that there is a flaw in Brig. Gen. G.'s affidavit due to this contact, then the very fact that the judges required the affidavit as a last resort after no evidence was found against him actually strengthens Gofman's position.