Avi Dichter, head of the Shin Bet security services: "The job of the assistant head of the Shin Bet is not that of "confidant." (Photo:  )

The process of putting the Shin Bet security services under the public spotlight has been brought to a new level this week. Y.S., a senior official in the Shin Bet, is petitioning against the appointment of another senior official, Y.Z., to the position of Shin Bet internal ombudsman.

The appointment of Y.Z. was approved in November 2001 by the appropriate committee, and came into effect on July 25, 2002. On July 1, 2002, Y.S.'s petition was submitted.

On August 15, the High Court of Justice issued a temporary writ indicating its intention to examine the appointment. The next proceedings will be held before Justices Aharon Barak, Mishael Cheshin and Alexander Rivlin, at the end of December.

The court received depositions from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and two heads of the Shin Bet, former chief Ami Ayalon, and the incumbent, Avi Dichter, as well as a deposition from the ombudsman himself. These documents, some of which have been banned from publication, but most of whose contents are open, allow for a rare glimpse into the regular conduct of the Shin Bet and the power struggles within it.

The exchange of documents in court reveal a harsh personal rivalry between the two parties, which has its origins in the period when they served together in the Shin Bet. The appointed ombudsman, 58-year-old Y.Z., is a 15-year veteran of the service, where he began to work after years in the standing army. Y.S., who petitioned against the appointment, is a 14-year veteran of the service, and is presently at a rank equivalent to that of colonel.

Y.Z. does not have fond memories of that period. "My work relationship with the petitioner deteriorated, and the difficulty in communicating with him, and his antipathy toward me, became intolerable," he writes in the deposition. "Working with the petitioner caused me intolerable emotional tension. This quarrel even caused my health to suffer. I came to Yaakov Peri, the chief of the service, and asked him to release me from my job. Even now I don't understand the reasons for the petitioner's behavior and his efforts to cause me to fail, from that day to this. In other words, this is a 12-year-old personal quarrel. The petitioner is not fighting for lofty principles in which he believes, but against a man whom he wishes to hurt. For this reason, the petitioner masked his behavior in falsely self-righteous claims. This is not the little Dutch boy who sticks his finger into the hole in the dam in order to prevent a major flood. This is simply an act of hostility and revenge."

The petitioner, Y.S., has an entirely different version. "When Y.Z. began his work as a department head, he developed a most unpleasant relationship with a series of senior officials in the unit," he wrote. "The petitioner, who had served for only two years at the time, was only one of those who complained about it to the head of the division. The steps taken by the division head at the time brought Y.Z.'s term as department head, to an unprecedented end. Common sense would dictate that if his relationship with the petitioner had been the only obstacle in his way, it would have been easier and more logical to get rid of the petitioner rather than getting rid of Y.Z., who was of course much more senior. Moreover: No reprimand, not even a mild one, was written or said about the work and behavior of the petitioner vis-a-vis Y.Z. at that time."

`Involved up to his neck'

The main argument of Y.S.'s representatives, attorneys Avigdor Feldman and Michael Sefarad, is that the appointment, which went into effect in July of this year, is not proper because Y.Z. served in recent years as the "personal assistant" to the head of the Shin Bet, a position that created a personal and professional intimacy that empties of content the idea of independent criticism - an idea whose necessity was a product of the Bus 300 affair, and whose time became ripe in the Shin Bet Law legislated this year. [The Bus 300 affair, which took place in November 1984, refers to the murder of two Palestinian hijackers of an Israeli bus, by agents of the Shin Bet, and the subsequent attempt within the service to hide the truth.]

This law, claims the petition, "has broadened the shoulders of the Shin Bet ombudsman, and has given him substantial critical roles, out of a desire to apply the harsh lessons from the Bus 300 affair, when it became evident that internal solidarity, deep friendship and an internal ethos of the rightness of the path led to the terrible consequences of lying to the court, interference with the activity of a commission of inquiry, et al."

And how does it occur to the head of the Shin Bet to appoint to the job of ombudsman, which is supposed to prevent the possible shortcomings of an organization whose outstanding features include never giving up and internal unity, a man who is involved up to his neck in the everyday life of the organization, and who is intimately involved in all the most senior professional and social aspects of the service? Can such a man escape the trap of preferring the internal ethos of the service to fearless and objective criticism?"

Y.Z.'s supporters - the prime minister and the head of the Shin Bet, who decided on the appointment - believe that he is the right man in the right place. Dichter, head of the Shin Bet, is aware of the difficulty in putting a "special assistant" into the job of ombudsman, but in his deposition he describes Y.Z.'s previous position as characterized by "independent thought," and by "analysis and evaluation, especially in the strategic field." And mainly, Dichter emphasizes the personal distance: "The position of the assistant to the head of the Shin Bet is not one of a `confidant.' There was no special personal dimension between me as head of the service and Y.Z., and this contradicts the argument raised in the petition, that he was supposedly `my confidant.'"

In his deposition, Y.Z. is much more outspoken: "This is a professional position that lacks any characteristic of confidence or intimacy. I was not the head of an office, and I wasn't a secretary. Not a driver, not a rabbi and not a confessing priest of the chief of the service."

The law does not prevent the appointment of an ombudsman from within the service. One can learn about the importance of the job from the fact that with the exception of the head of the Shin Bet, this is the only position where the law defines who can be chosen, to whom he is subordinate and how he should organize his work.

The two parties to the petition point to mutual lapses. The state is complaining about the long period of time that has passed from the time the petitioner found out about the appointment - about a year ago - until the time when he raised his reservations before those in charge and submitted the petition.

On the other hand, attorneys Feldman and Sefarad point to the defective appointment. The law states that the prime minister is the one who appoints the ombudsman, on the recommendation of the head of the Shin Bet, whereas, claim the lawyers, Sharon's deposition indicates that he "did not operate independently on the subject of the appointment, but received a ready-made appointment for signing. With due respect, in this case the prime minister was a rubber stamp for a choice made for him by the chief of the service, and for this reason, too, the appointment must be canceled."

`Why am I being punished?'

At the beginning of his deposition, the ombudsman admits: "I decided to submit this deposition without the assistance of an attorney, and to present to you words that come from the heart, directly, without intermediaries and legal sublimation." And, in fact, the absence of restraining legal advice is obvious in the ombudsman's harsh words. He has a right to claim that the petitioner has a personal motive, and in fact he writes that the petitioner "is standing on shaky moral ground because he has hidden the personal, revenge-driven background to the petition." However, there is certainly room for the claim on principle as well."

Y.Z. also attacks the temporary writ issued by the High Court. "When the temporary writ was issued, I understood that an eclipse had taken place, and that a terrible mistake was about to be made," he writes. "I couldn't remain silent any longer, and I came out to defend my rights and dignity as a person, as a civil servant and as an employee of the Shin Bet. I believe justice is on my side, and that is what will undermine the foundations of this petition, and will breach its fortifications." It's not certain that the judges will like the description of their writ as an "eclipse."

He continues by sharing with the court his personal confrontation with the petition. "At night I wonder what I am being punished for, and why I deserve it. My family has paid a high price during this period. There were moments when I wanted to abandon the fray, but I couldn't betray the values with which I raised and educated my children. One doesn't run away from a fight if the price is silencing the spirit of justice. This petition has been shaking me for several months in a Kafkaesque whirlpool, created by the petitioner and his representative. My job and my future hang in the balance. I am standing alone against a wicked step disguised behind a mask of a few self-righteous legal arguments."

In their reply, Feldman and Sefarad express surprise at his claim that he is "alone."

After all, standing behind him and supporting him are such personalities as the prime minister and the present and past heads of the Shin Bet.

The person who has a right to complain about being alone is the petitioner in this case. Even Justice Cheshin expressed surprise in the course of the proceedings at the courage of a Shin Bet man to come out openly, in a legal battle, against the top echelons of the organization.

This top echelon, for its part, behaved very decently toward Y.S., who petitioned against it.

"I have no doubts as to the intentions of the petitioner," writes Dichter in his deposition, in complete contrast to what was said in the deposition of Y.Z., who is certain of invalid motives of revenge.

Feldman and Sefarad also have something to say about the content of Y.Z.'s deposition. "The window that is opened to the soul of Y.Z. by means of his deposition, reveals a picture that is not at all pleasant, since what we see before us is a vengeful man, with a paranoiac tendency to accuse anyone who opposes him of belonging to the forces of evil, and this is a man who doesn't forget and doesn't forgive, and anyone who has disagreed with him had better watch himself."

The High Court justices are facing weighty legal questions regarding not only the procedure and the appointment. They must also examine the substance - whether there isn't a true conflict of interest that was created as a result of the exaggerated closeness between the ombudsman and the object of his criticism, a closeness born not only of the job description as "special assistant," but of the way the job was performed. This when, as opposed to the efforts of the petitioner to emphasize the closeness, the head of the Shin Bet claims that the element of closeness is not significant.

Y.Z. argues that "the attempt to compare me to Rasputin, who is in control behind the scenes of the czar's regime, or to the adviser from the British television series `Yes, Minister,' is ridiculous, and constitutes an unjustified blow to the honor of the service, and to the honor of its heads. I didn't `run' the service and I wasn't anyone's `right-hand man.'"

Feldman and Sefarad are not convinced.

"Is it really reasonable and proper from a public point of view that when an ombudsman is appointed, the head of the Shin Bet raises his eyes from his table, surveys the members of his staff, and of all of them picks out his `special assistant,' with the strongest connection to him?" they write, adding that "the aim of the law is to establish an independent ombudsman who knowingly, and even unknowingly, does not prefer not to harm those who until yesterday sat with him in the most senior forums of the service, an ombudsman who has not in his previous job formed an opinion and a position on almost every issue relating to the service."