Avi Dichter
Photo: Yaron Brener
Aharon Ze'evi Farkash
Photo: Niv Calderon
MK Dichter to testify in civil suit against PA
Despite attorney general's objection, judge rules former Shin Bet chief and two other officials to testify in lawsuit filed by owners of Jerusalem café which was nearly target of suicide bombing in 2002
Jerusalem Magistrate's Court Judge Yoel Tsur ruled Sunday that Knesset Member Avi Dichter (Kadima),
a former Shin Bet chief, will testify in a damages suit filed by a Jerusalem café against the Palestinian Authority, despite the attorney general's objection.
Dichter, along with former Military Intelligence Chief Aharon Ze'evi Farkash and former Minister Danny Naveh, will testify for the Caffit coffee shop, which is suing the PA and Nidal Mashal, who was a member of a terror organization in 2002 which the plaintiffs say was sponsored and encouraged by the PA.
The suit was originally filed against former PA Chairman Yasser Arafat, whose name was removed from the statement of claim after his death.
The lawsuit was filed after a Palestinian entered the café in March 2002, carrying a bag filled with explosives, and asked for a glass of water. He raised the suspicion of a waiter, who pushed him outside with the help of a security guard. The two disconnected the wires attached to the would-be-bomber's body, preventing a terror attack.
The attorney general's office argued that the three officials cannot be defined as "witnesses" in accordance with the rules of evidence. "It has been claimed that the wanted evidence involves classifying, categorizing and analyzing a large number of secret intelligence items which were collected for years, and drawing conclusions – as opposed to a direct testimony on specific facts in the witnesses' personal knowledge."
The attorney general's office added in its objection that "the plaintiffs have an alternative to obtain an opinion about this matter, by paying research institutes involved in studying the Middle East, including the activities of terror organizations."
The office went on to say that "it is unreasonable and unjustified for people who have held senior public positions to be required to provide an expert's testimony on this matters in a civil suit."
The attorney general believes that in matters of policy, plaintiffs should refrain as much as possible from summoning witnesses as these officials, "unless their personal testimony is clearly needed to clarify the dispute and there is no other alternative for obtaining the required information."
The plaintiffs claimed that the three officials must be summoned as they "engaged as part of their positions in the matters discussed by the sides' representatives, and these matters are in their personal knowledge. In this sense, these officials meet the definition of a 'witness' in the rules of evidence. These officials, as part of their positions, determined or influenced Israel's policy in different areas."
